Preamble

The House met at a, Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Rochdale Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Kettering Gas Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES ACT.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 1 and 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps his Department takes, for the protection of the public, to ensure that auditors comply with Section 134 (1) of the Companies Act, 1929, which requires auditors to report on those accounts and balance sheets, certified by them, which include a profit and loss account issued to the shareholders;
(2) whether the companies department satisfies itself that auditors who sign certificates on balance sheets and accounts which include a profit and loss account issued to shareholders, and are lodged with the Board of Trade under Section 110 of the Companies Act, 1929, have complied with Section 134 (1) of that Act, which requires auditors to report on the accounts examined by them and on every balance sheet, or whether the Department accepts, as valid for Section 110, certificates of auditors who have not complied with the requirements of Section 134 (1)?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Section 134 (1) of the Companies Act, relates to the duties of auditors in reporting to the members of the company. The Act does not authorise the Department to take any steps to ensure that those duties are
properly performed nor has the Department any official knowledge of the manner in which the auditors carry out those duties except in so far as Section 110 requires the filing with the Registrar of Companies of a copy of the auditors' report on the last audited balance sheet. In the very few cases where the report does not comply with Section 134 (1) the Registrar draws the attention of the company to the statutory provisions. I would, however, point out that it is primarily the responsibility of the shareholders to see that the auditors carry out their duties and that if the shareholders are dissatisfied they can appoint other auditors.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: What is the use of complying with Section 110, if Section 134 is not complied with? The two are complementary.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will put a question on the Order Paper as to the virtues of Section 110, I will look into it.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I do not suggest that the Act has any virtues.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST EROSION.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the need for action to be taken to deal with coast erosion in various parts of the country; and if he can state whether it is intended to introduce at an early date a Measure on the lines of the late Coast Protection Bill?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the problem to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I cannot, however, undertake to introduce legislation on the lines of the Coast Protection Bill of 1929 unless the Bill could be proceeded with substantially as an agreed Measure.

Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and see if there is any likelihood of this being an agreed Measure? There is no reason why it should not be.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member cares to inquire through the usual channels, I have no doubt that they will be available for him.

Captain MACDONALD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman apply through the usual channels?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, the Bill is not mine.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British passenger vessels are now fitted with cinema apparatus; whether he is aware that at the present time no British films are ever shown on such British passenger vessels; and whether he will take the necessary steps to provide for a greater proportion of British films being shown on British vessels?

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether the cinematograph films shown on British Transatlantic liners are of British or American make; and, if of both, in what proportions are the two shown?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no information as to either the number of British passenger vessels that are fitted with cinema apparatus or the proportions in which they show British and American films. I would, however, refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on this subject on 2nd March.

Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very few, if any, British films shown on British ships crossing the Atlantic, and will he make inquiries and see if he cannot influence British shipowners to use British films?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt they will be very glad to do so, and I am informed that there are some British films shown on board British ships.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the point as to whether if these ships are British territory the statutory condition as to the quota should be satisfied?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: They spend most of their time outside the three-miles limit.

CARGO SHIPS (STATISTICS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number
of incoming cargo-carrying ships which have berthed in the country in the week ending 29th February and the two previous weeks?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to the navigation returns furnished to the Board of Trade the numbers of vessels that arrived, in the foreign trade, at ports of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with cargo for discharge at the port of arrival, during the weeks ended 15th, 22nd and 29th February, 1932, were 934, 1,116 and 1,455, respectively.

CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply the Government have made to the request of the Cunard Company for the assistance of His Majesty s Government to enable them to complete their new ship at John Brown's Yard, Clydebank?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reply which has been made by the Government to the Cunard Steamship Company is to the effect that they have most regretfully reached the definite conclusion that it is not possible for them, by way either of subsidy or of guarantee, to give financial assistance to the company in the building of the new steamer.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the House what the Cunard Company proposes to do in regard to building 534, now lying at Clydebank?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I am afraid that I cannot tell the House what the Cunard Company propose to do. The purport of my answer, which is the considered opinion of the Government, is that if the vessel is to be completed, it must be completed out of the resources at the command of the company

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not a fact that the Cunard Company are very doubtful whether, with the large cost of the ship, it would pay them to fit the ship and to run her at the present time?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot express any opinion on the trading capacity of this ship.

Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the
great loss of prestige to this country in the trans-Atlantic trade, vis-a-vis European countries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, all those facts have been taken into consideration.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the House what reply the Cunard Company gave to the Government or to him when they interviewed him or the Cabinet?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have given an answer which covers the question which has been put before us by the Cunard Company. The last communication was by way of letter, and it has been replied to by letter.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE).

Captain MOSS: 12
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what maritime countries have now ratified the Merchant Shipping International Conventions on Safety of Life at Sea and Load Line;
(2) the date when the United States Government ratified the international load-line convention; and can he say whether that Government have yet taken any steps to ratify the international convention on safety of life at sea, which includes the change in helm orders;
(3) if it is intended to bring the Merchant Shipping International Conventions into force in this country on 1st November next; and whether that date is dependent upon ratification by the United States Government and that of other countries signatory thereto?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, has been ratified by Denmark and the Netherlands. The International Load Line Convention, 1930, has been ratified by Denmark, Latvia and the United States of America. The United States deposited their instrument of ratification of the Load Line Convention on 10th June, 1931, and the Safety Convention has been submitted to the Senate with a view to obtaining its advice and consent to ratification. Several countries which have not yet ratified the Conventions have intimated that they are in a position to do so. As five ratifications are necessary to bring either of the Conventions into operation, it is proposed to make such arrangements regarding the
deposit of further ratifications, including those of this country, as will bring the Conventions into operation on a date or dates which are mutually convenient to the countries concerned. The 1st November next has been suggested as suitable.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

FOREIGN IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. LAWSON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state whether the order issued by the German coal commissioner on 27th February particularly restricts imports of English coal to Germany; and if he can now make a statement to the House giving the result of his inquiries an this matter?

Mr. RUNC1MAN: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 2nd March. I will, however, advise him as soon as I have received further information so that he can then put down a further question.

Mr. LAWSON: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, and ask him if he is aware that this Act is operating very hardly and harshly, particularly on the North-East Coast? Will he, therefore, expedite his inquiries, and will he inquire whether recent legislation has affected the decision on the part of Germany?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that South Wales has suffered more severely than any other coal-exporting district?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that any curtailment of the coal export trade will hit South Wales as well as the North-East Coast, but in this case it is the North-East Coast that is suffering most severely. We are well aware of that fact. I do not connect the recent German action with anything that has been done here. The only reasons given to us in regard to the quota have nothing to do with our own arrangements in this country.

Mr. LAWSON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total tonnage of imported coal which has been prohibited
by special orders in importing countries; and whether he can name the countries concerned?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HANNON: Will the reply embody a statement of the names of the countries which discriminate against us?

France introduced restrictions on the importation of coal, briquettes and certain classes of coke from all countries on the 1st August, 1931; Belgium on the importation of coal and briquettes on 13th October, 1931; and Germany introduced on 1st October, 1931, the first of a series of reductions in the quota of British coal. The table below shows the difference between the imports during the periods of restrictions and corresponding periods of the previous year.


—
Aug. to Dec, 1930.
Aug. to Dec, 1931.
Decrease in imports (Col. 1 minus Col. 2).


Col. 1.
Col. 2.
Col. 3.


France:
Metric tons.
Metric tons.
Metric tone.


Total imports of coal (coke and briquettes in terms of coal).
12,824,955
11,067,855
1,757,100


Belgium:
Oct. to Dec, 1930.
Oct. to Dec, 1931.



Total imports of coal (briquettes in in terms of coal).
2,533,812
2,175,399
358,413


Germany:





Total imports of coal (coke and briquettes in terms of coal).
1,971,081
1,895,526
75,555


It is impossible to say whether the reductions shown above are due solely to the restrictions or whether they are due in part to other causes and if so to what extent.


The 31st December, 1931, is the latest date for which statistics are available in the French, Belgium and German trade accounts. Additional reductions were made by all three countries on 1st February. 1932, while Germany made a further reduction on 1st March and is to make yet another on 1st April.

ITALY (IMPORT DITTY).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received a reply from the Italian Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Italy on the question of the Landing Duty imposed on coal imported into that country by sea?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No reply has yet been received. The matter is still the subject of discussion between His Majesty's Embassy and the Italian Government.

PIT-HEAD BATHS.

Mr. PRICE: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines furnished

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The figures will show the way in which these discriminations or these limitations affect us in regard to France, Belgium and Germany.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the statement make any reference to recent legislation and any connection between the two things?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. They make no such reference because there is no connection between them.

Following is the reply:

with pit-head baths in each mining area of England, Scotland, and Wales; and the number of cases in which these have been provided out of the Miners' Welfare Fund?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): The total number of coal mines in England, Scotland and Wales furnished with pit-head baths for workmen, is 103. Of these baths, 85 were provided out of the Miners' Welfare Fund and six were partially paid for by the fund. In addition, 41 installations, all provided out of the fund, are in course of construction. I will send the hon. Member a table giving the detailed information for each district.

COAL MINES ACT.

Mr. MITCHESON: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the effect on the coal industry of the restrictions placed by the Coal Mines Act on the production and sale of coal, he will take steps to remove these restrictions at an early date?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies that I gave on the 1st March to the hon. Member for the Sedgefield Division of Durham (Mr. Jennings) and the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown). Since that date I have received the reply of the Miners' Federation. I am still awaiting replies from two organisations, one of which is the Mining Association.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: In considering this matter, will the Secretary for Mines take into consideration the special case of Northumberland and Durham, which are hardly hit by this Act?

Mr. FOOT: Representations have been made already, and I have had the honour of visiting the North East Coast and consulting with those on the spot.

Mr. BATEY: Does the Minister for Mines believe that Durham has been hardly hit by the Act?

Mr. FOOT: I made no admission to that effect.

EXPLOSIONS.

Mr. TINKER: 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will give the latest figures available for 1931, showing the number of explosions by firedamp in coal mines; the number of deaths caused and the number of non-fatal accidents; and will he give similar figures for 1930?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: During 1931, 107 persons were killed and 100 injured by 49 explosions of firedamp or coal-dust. The corresponding figures for 1930 were 70 killed and 128 injured by 62 explosions.

Mr. PIKE: Does not the Minister for Mines consider that these distressing figures justify an immediate use of automatic gas detectors?

Mr. FOOT: There is no evidence which would justify us in coming to that decision. That is a matter for inquiry.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are the inquiries still proceeding?

Mr. FOOT: All the arrangements, as the hon. Member is aware, are in hand and will be carried through as soon as circumstances permit.

CLOSED MINES.

Mr. TINKER: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the closing down of coal mines in many parts of Lancashire and the removing of pumping plant is causing danger to the other mines in the vicinity through water accumulating; and will he consider bringing in legislation to prevent mines being closed until the inspector of mines is satisfied that it will not endanger other mines?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: These developments are being closely watched from the point of view of safety; and there is no reason at present to apprehend any danger to mine workers. The closing of a mine is determined by economic considerations and it is the duty of the owners of neighbouring mines to take any precautions that may become necessary in consequence. The circumtances are always examined by His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines from the safety point of view.

Mr. TINKER: Has the attention of the Secretary for Mines been drawn by his inspectors to those cases where mines which are closed are an added danger to other mines in the vicinity through an accumulation of water?

Mr. FOOT: My answer related to the question of safety. I have no power to deal with mines which are closed on economic grounds.

Mr. TINKER: But my questions asks whether the Secretary for Mines will take powers?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to consider the last part of the question which asks whether he will consider bringing in legislation in view of the fact that there are cases of mines being closed because other mines are not keeping to their contract in regard to the disposal of water?

Mr. FOOT: Any representations of that sort will be considered.

EXPORT TRADE (CANADA).

Mr. BATEY: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of tons of coal bought by Canada for the year 1931 from this country and also from the United States of America?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Imports of coal (for consumption) into Canada in 1931 were:


From
Bituminous.
Anthracite.
Total.



Statute Tons.
Statute Tons.
Statute Tons.


Great Britain
109,200
782,500
891,700


United States of America.
9,129,400
1,996,800
11,126,200


Particulars in respect of coke are not yet available.

Mr. BATEY: Seeing that Canada bought from this country less than 1,000,000 tons of coal and that she bought 10,000,000 tons from the United States of America, is it the intention of the Government at the Ottawa Conference to draw their attention to the advisability of buying more coal from this country?

Mr. FOOT: A memorandum has been prepared by my Department for submission on that occasion.

Mr. BATEY: Will that memorandum be handed over to the representatives of this country when they go to Ottawa?

Mr. FOOT: It is prepared for that purpose.

MINERS' WELFARE FUND.

Mr. McKIE: 26.
(for Mrs. WARD) asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of money (raised by the levy on coal) that has gone to the Miners' Welfare Fund of Great Britain; and if any of the money is devoted to helping the aged miners?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The total amount collected in respect of the output levy to 29th February last, was £9,965,927. The only grants made therefrom specifically for the benefit of aged miners have been for the provision of aged miners' homes, and these amount to £30,350.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SAND AND BALLAST INDUSTRY.

Mr. MITCHESON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the complaints regarding the methods of cartage and delivery at present prevailing in the sand and ballast industry, he will take steps to protect
the consumer by making regulations for a system of standardised measurement in the industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: This question is being examined and the Standards Department are in communication with representatives of the trades concerned.

GERMANY (IMPORT DUTIES).

Mr. HANNON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make a statement on the amplification by Germany of the existing tariff; to what extent the trade of Great Britain and countries within the British Empire is affected by these new duties; and if any representations are being made on this subject to the German Government?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the German Government intend to introduce a maximum Customs tariff which may be applied to the goods of countries which have no commercial treaty with Germany or which discriminate against German goods, but so far as I know no such tariff has yet been brought into actual operation. According to my information the only parts of the Empire which could be affected by such a tariff are Canada and Australia. No question of representations on the part of His Majesty s Government in the United Kingdom therefore arises.

Mr. HANNON: Will the Board of Trade watch any contemplated action by the German Government that might affect the interests of Australia or Canada?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the Dominions are quite capable of looking after their own interests.

FRANCE AND ITALY (COMMERCIAL TREATY).

Mr. HANNON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a statement on the conclusion of a commercial treaty between France and Italy; and if British trade, rights and privileges under existing treaties with both countries are affected by this treaty?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that negotiations for a new commercial agreement between France and Italy have reached their conclusion, a modus vivendi having been signed on 4th March. The text of the agreement is not yet avail-
able, but it clearly could have no effect upon the rights secured to this country by existing treaties with the countries concerned.

IMPORT DUTIES ACT (PREFERENCE).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, on the basis of last year's trade, he can state the approximate value of Imperial Preference which is now being given to the Dominions and Colonies under the Import Duties Act?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I regret that, as statistics of the imports from the Empire into the United Kingdom, in 1931 of goods now liable to the 10 per cent. general ad valorem duty under the Import Duties Act, 1932, are not yet available, it is not possible to give the figure for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks.

Captain MACDONALD: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be able to give the figures?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I cannot say yet when they will be available.

REDS-URN IRON AND STEEL WORKS, SCUNTHORPE.

Mr. LIDDALL: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Redburn Iron and Steel Works at Scunthorpe have been closed down for a considerable time and that the main factor against reopening is the heavy carriage on bars from the Redburn works to Wales; and if he has the power of reducing or influencing the reduction of such railway rates?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: This question concerns rather the Ministry of Transport than the Board of Trade, and I am handing it over to my hon. Friend who is the head of the Ministry of Transport, who will no doubt inquire into it. I may say, in passing, that it appears to be more a case for the Railway Rates Tribunal than for the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. In what circumstances has this question been put down as a Private Notice question? It does not seem to me, with great respect, to comply with any of the conditions governing such questions.

Mr. SPEAKER: This question could not have been asked after a Quarter to Four on the ground of urgency or public importance. The time allowed for Questions is one hour, from a Quarter to Three until a Quarter to Four. Any question which can be put during that time, whether or not it is urgent, can be put in the ordinary course, if notice to me has been given.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Why has this question, dealing with freights on railways and canals, been allowed to be put in this way, when questions that have been put in at the Table dealing with excessive passenger fares have been ruled out, on the ground that they ought to have been sent on to the Railway Rates Tribunal?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say why they have until I see the questions to which the hon. Member refers, but questions are often put to the Minister of Transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 17.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider the desirability of issuing third-class reduced fare railway warrants instead of first-class to officers who prefer to use these in the interests of economy both to the State and to themselves?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The proposal that third class railway warrants should be granted to officers when travelling on duty at the public expense has been considered on more than one occasion, but it has not been found expedient to make any change.

STRENGTH (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 19.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the relative strength of the armies of France, Italy, Japan, and the United States of America, compared with that of the British Army, in 1913 and 1931?

Mr. COOPER: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such figures as are available.

Following for the figures:

The latest published information regarding the numbers of foreign armies will be found in the Armaments Year Book published by the League of Nations. The British Army figure for 1931 is 147,764.

The figures for 1913 are as follow:


France
…
725,000
(a)


Italy
…
250,000



Japan
…
234,000



United States of America
…
92,000



British Army
…
181,233
(b)

(a) Excluding Gendarmerie and Garde Republicaine.

(b) Excluding additional numbers (3,300), Royal Flying Corps (1,005) and Central Flying School (62).

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WAR OFFICE).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 18.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the total personnel of the War Office, including temporary typists, cleaners, etc.; and what is the corresponding figure for 1914?

Mr. COOPER: The total personnel of the War Office, including the financial staff at outstations, temporary typists, cleaners, etc., for the financial year 1932 will be 2,268. The corresponding number for 1914 is 1,878.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

VALUATION AND RATING.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been called to the effect of the system of Scottish rating upon building, industry, and commerce in Scotland; and whether he proposes to investigate the existing systems of valuation and rating in Scotland, with a view to reform?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): Representations on the subjects of valuation and rating in Scotland have been received by me. As regards rating, my hon. Friend will remember that this was the subject of inquiry by a committee presided over by Lord Dunedin, which reported in 1922. I expect shortly
to receive a deputation from the Convention of Royal Burghs on the subject of the valuation of municipal undertakings. Pending the reception of this deputation, I am not in a position to reach a decision on the matter of a further inquiry.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES (GRANTS).

Lord SCONE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of the grants sanctioned to each of the three Scottish agricultural colleges during the financial year ending 31st March, 1932; and whether it is proposed to continue the same grants during the next financial year?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Grants from State funds have been sanctioned in aid of the maintenance expenses of the Scottish agricultural colleges in the current financial year as follow:



£


Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture
17,045


West of Scotland Agricultural College
25,906


North of Scotland College of Agriculture
25,920


The Department of Agriculture for Scotland are at present in communication with the Scottish Education Department with a view to the continuance of the special assistance which has been given to the colleges in recent years from the Education (Scotland) Fund. It is hoped that it will be found possible to provide for the payment of grants in the coming financial year sufficient to enable the services of the colleges to be maintained on approximately the same standard as in the current year.

DEER (DAMAGE TO CROPS).

Mr. MACPHERSON: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the agreement reached by all parties concerned, it is now proposed to introduce legislation dealing with damage done by deer to crops in the North of Scotland?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: At a conference held on 23rd February a committee representative of the associations concerned was appointed to consider proposals for dealing with this subject. When the report of this committee, which I hope will show unanimity of
opinion, has been submitted to me, I shall consider the question of the introduction of legislation.

TOWN PLANNING.

Sir JAMES DUNCAN MILLAR: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the representations from the small burghs in Scotland regarding the limitation of their powers in connection with town-planning schemes within burgh boundaries; and whether he is prepared to adjust an Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Bill to meet the points raised?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend has arranged to meet, on Thursday, the 10th March, a deputation from the Convention of Royal Burghs who are to put before him the representations of the small burghs in Scotland with regard to their position under the Town and Country Planning Bill. After bearing the deputation my right hon. Friend will consider how far it may be possible to meet the views of the small burghs.

Sir J. DUNCAN MILLAR: Is the hon. Member aware of the strong feeling which exists among the smaller burghs in Scotland that, as the authorities immediately concerned, they should control town planning schemes in their own areas?

Mr. SKELTON: I have no doubt that that consideration will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (CANADA).

Mr. McENTEE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any proposal is under consideration for State-assisted migration to Western Canada?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): So far as I know, neither the Government of the Dominion of Canada nor the Governments of the Western Provinces regard State-assisted migration into Western Canada as opportune at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. CROSS: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps
have been taken to consult with the Governments of the self-governing Dominions as to the position of the British Empire in relation to Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, having special regard to the Sino-Japanese situation?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The general question of the application of Article 16 of the Covenant of the League has, of course, been studied in the past in conjunction with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions. As regards the present dispute between China and Japan the question of the application of this Article has not arisen. As the House is aware, the representatives of the Dominion Governments at Geneva have been in daily contact with the representatives of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as to the situation.

Mr. MANDER: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received to the representations made to the Japanese Government by the British and other foreign Governments with reference to the further landing of Japanese troops at the international settlement; and whether this practice has now ceased in accordance with the request made?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply returned on 1st March to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). So far as I am aware, no further reinforcements have been landed in the settlement since that date.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Colonel GOODMAN: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has information respecting International and foreign control of raw materials and primary products produced within the Dominions; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to propose the inclusion on the agenda for the forthcoming Imperial Conference at Ottawa of an item enabling this subject to be discussed in order to secure that these products shall be supplied in the first place to the benefit and advantage of industries within the Empire?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am aware that in certain cases primary resources have been developed with the assistance of foreign capital, but I am not aware of any cases in which the result has been to deprive industries within the Empire of the use, on competitive terms, of the commodities thus produced. I do not anticipate that the agenda of the Ottawa Conference will be so framed as to exclude discussion of this subject if desired, but as at present advised His Majesty's Government do not themselves propose to raise it.

Colonel GOODMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the asbestos mines in Rhodesia are controlled by an international firm, who, because they can purchase asbestos fibre from Russia, at a price lower than that at which it can be produced in Rhodesia, are slacking down the work in the mines there, thus causing considerable unemployment?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not aware of that, but, if the hon. and gallant Member will give me details, I will see how far they have relation to the answer which I have just given.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRAINING CENTRES (COST).

Mr. POTTER: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount expended to the most convenient date in respect of training centres set up in various parts of the country by his Department; and whether he can give separate figures relating to the Blackpool centre?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The total amount expended in respect of the scheme for training young unemployed men at the various Government training centres and transfer instructional centres from the commencement of the scheme in 1925 to 31st December last was approximately £1,900,000. This total covers both capital and running expenses, including allowances and travelling expenses paid to trainees, but not benefit or transitional payments received by them. The corresponding total for the Blackpool centre, which was closed in October, 1931, was £38,000.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Brandon is to be closed down?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. There is no present intention of closing Brandon.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. POTTER: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of the grants made to local authorities, and to other public bodies, in respect of unemployment relief schemes to the most convenient date?

Mr. HUDSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Marquess of Hartington) on 25th February, and to the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) on the 3rd March, of which I am sending him copies. These replies referred to State-aided relief works assisted from the Unemployment Grants Committee and from the Road Fund, on which the bulk of expenditure out of public funds is incurred.

INSURANCE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to receive the findings of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance; and when the report will be published?

Mr. HUDSON: It is not yet possible to say exactly when the Royal Commission will make their report.

Mr. COOK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as far as agricultural labourers are concerned, the matter is one of urgency?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not anticipate that the report will be very long delayed.

EXCHANGE VACANCIES (SELECTED CANDIDATES).

Mr. MANDEB: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether Employment Exchanges are authorised by his Department to refuse a green card to a man who has found work for himself?

Mr. HUDSON: The "green card" is an introduction from the Exchange to the prospective employer and signifies that the person named on it has been selected by the Exchange for submission for a particular vacancy. My hon. Friend will see therefore that the card cannot be given to anyone who has not been so selected.

BUILDING TRADES, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the building trades in Lancashire at the latest date for which figures are available?

Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


INSURED PERSONS in the building industry classification recorded as unemployed in Lancashire at 22nd February, 1932.


Occupation.
Number.


Carpenters
4,062


Bricklayers
2,144


Masons
295


Slaters
305


Plasterers
899


Painters
5,009


Plumbers
1,453


Labourers to above
7,864


All other occupations
6,709


Total
28,740

BENEFIT.

Mr. PARKINSON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when considering the disposal of the money received under the Import Duties Act, he will examine the possibility of restoring the reductions made in unemployment insurance benefits?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must deprecate all attempts to anticipate the division of a hypothetical surplus in the next Budget.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Did not the right hon. Gentleman himself, in a speech in this House recently, anticipate the disposal of this surplus?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Royal Air Force armoured car detachments in Palestine are equipped and maintained from Army ordnance stores, or whether their spare parts, equipment, etc., are provided by the Royal Air Force depots?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): These detachments are equipped and maintained from Royal Air Force depots, which, in the ordinary course, necessarily handle and hold large stocks of spares for motor transport vehicles, internal combustion engines and machine guns and similar items.

Brigadier-General BROWN: In the interests of economy, would it not be better to have co-ordination between the two ordnance depots of the two Services?

Sir P. SASSOON: In the case of Iraq there is no Army ordnance depot at all..

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC TRUSTEE (STOCKBROKING).

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: 41.
asked the Attorney-General the amount of rebated commission paid by stockbrokers to the Public Trustee and Deputy Public Trustee, respectively, during each of the past five years, and the means adopted by such officials in selecting brokers through whom such business was transacted?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures asked for in the first part of be question, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
In reply to the last part of the question, subject to any special considerations that may arise under the trust, business in the head office is allotted in rotation to brokers on the London Stock Exchange, from a list drawn up and revised from time to time by the Public Trustee with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. Business in the Manchester office is allotted by the Deputy Public Trustee in rotation to suitable brokers on the Manchester Stock Exchange in such manner as seems best to ensure a fair and reasonable distribution.

Mr. MORRIS: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that not in all cases have the Public Trustee and the Deputy Public Trustee selected brokers, as laid down in Article 40 of the Regulations governing this matter; and, if I place the particulars before him, will he issue instructions that that Article is to, be adhered to strictly?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot undertake to issue instructions, but, if the hon. Gentleman will furnish me with the facts, I will gladly look into the matter.

Following are the figures:

The amounts of rebated commission paid by stockbrokers to the Public Trustee during each of the past five years are as follow:


Year to 31st March.
Head Office.
Man Chester.
Total.




£
£
£


1927
…
19,258
2,847
22,105


1928
…
26,436
4,182
30,618


1929
…
34,636
3,902
38,538


1930
…
24,063
2,353
26,416


1931
…
19,783
2,523
22,306

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (PACKAGES).

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of postal

Registered Letters and Parcels.


Year.
No. of packets posted.
Cases of loss.
Amount paid in compensation.








£


1928–29
…
…
…
43,860,000
855
2,920


1929–30
…
…
…
44,068,000
721
2,479


1930–31
…
…
…
43,624,000
812
3,001

Unregistered Parcels.


Year.
No. of packets posted.
Gases of loss.
Amount paid in compensation.








£


1928–29
…
…
…
141,009,000
10,546
9,855


1929–30
…
…
…
147,077,000
11,960
10,493


1930–31
…
…
…
149,497,000
13,662
10,646


Exact figures for the first three quarters of the current financial year are not available.

Mr. MACDONALD: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of postal packages dealt with by the postal authorities during each of the three years ended 31st January, 1931?

Mr. WHITE: Figures for the yearly periods ending 31st January are not available. The following figures correct to the

packages lost in transit during each of the three years ended 31st December, 1931, and the amount of compensation paid?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): The answer to this question contains a number of figures, and, with the permission of the hon. Member, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. PIKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures include the total number of packages lost?

Mr. WHITE: Yes.

Following is the answer:

No estimate can be given of the number or value of unregistered letters which disappear in the post. As regards inland registered letters and parcels, and inland unregistered parcels, the figures for the last three financial years are as follow:—

nearest million relate to the yearly periods ending of 31st March:


Year ended 31st March, 1929
6,384,000,000


Year ended 31st March, 1930
6,560,000,000


Year ended 31st March, 1931
6,637,000,000

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

CURRENCY.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the pound has depreciated approximately 30 per cent. while the fiduciary issue has increased by less than 6 per cent., he will consider taking the necessary steps to increase the fiduciary issue in order to provide an ample supply of currency for the increased employment which is expected to result from the operation of the Import Duties Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) on 1st December last.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1928 the amount of currency in circulation has been reduced by over £50,000,000; and does he appreciate the fact that, if we are to provide more employment, we shall have to provide more wages, and that, in order to do that, we shall have to increase the amount of currency; and, in view of these facts, is it not desirable that the fiduciary issue should be increased?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not entirely the question which the hon. Member put in the first instance, but he can be assured that these matters are being carefully watched.

Mr. DAVID MASON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not contemplate reducing the fiduciary issue, so as to raise still further the value of the pound?

FINANCE ACT, 1931 (PART III.)

Sir F. HALL: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now take the necessary steps to repeal Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated on 8th December last, the Government have suspended work upon the valuation prescribed by Part III of the Finance Act, 1931, and the necessary legislation will be included in the forthcoming Finance Bill.

Sir F. HALL: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend's reply that the necessary legislation to do away
altogether with Part III and the valuation, will be included in the Finance Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said "the necessary legislation." Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will await the Finance Bill.

Sir F. HALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a general concensus of opinion in this House that no expenditure should be incurred in respect of Part III in the future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be quite satisfied.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciate how well this announcement has been taken by some of the hon. Members behind him?

INCOME TAX.

Mr. PARKINSON: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Income Tax payments outstanding on 31st December, 1931, and on 31st March for the years 1928, 1929 and 1930, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret I am unable to furnish estimates of the amounts in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the contract for printing Bills and Acts of Parliament expires; and whether it is the intention of the Government to continue to put this work out to contract?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The contract expires at the end of the present Session. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (REDUNDANT COTTON MILLS).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the redundancy of cotton-spinning mills and the shortage of working-class accommodation, he will cause an inquiry to be
made into the practicability of converting cotton-mill buildings into tenement buildings?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): Proposals of this kind have been made in the past and have been found on inquiry to be neither economical nor effective generally, but careful consideration would be given to any proposal for the conversion of a particular building submitted by a local authority.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Could my hon. Friend direct my attention to those places, in some official report, where it has been found undesirable and uneconomic?

Mr. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to the experiments that were made in 1919 on this matter.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Have not the circumstances materially altered since then; are there not many more of these redundant mills; and has not the desirability of erecting working-class houses increased?

Mr. BROWN: The answer is that there is a great variety of considerations to be taken into account, and, as my hon. Friend knows, the mills are not equally suitable for this purpose. That is why I have given the answer that I have, that any particular proposal made will receive consideration.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that it is very unsatisfactory to get an answer referring to the redundancy of cotton mills in 1919, when there were no redundant cotton and that now there are over 200 of them?

Mr. BROWN: The answer is that I did not refer to redundancy at all, but to experiments made in this direction, which were found to be very costly indeed.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In the light of the facts, will my hon. Friend look into the matter again?

Mr. BROWN: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (INFANT MORTALITY).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he
can give statistics showing the infant mortality in Trinidad during the last three years; and to what extent the Government contribute annually to child welfare and maternity work in that Colony?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Vital Statistics, Trinidad.


—
1928.
1929.
1930.


Total births
11,666
12,695
12,730


Still births
927
977
947


Total deaths
7,844
7,779
7,721


Deaths under 1 year
1,500
1,624
1,617


Deaths at age of 1 year
419
354
325


Deaths at age of 2 years
147
134
109


Deaths at age of 3 years
75
71
69


Deaths at age of 4 years
61
52
53


Deaths at age of 5 years
208
187
195

There is a Child Welfare League in Trinidad to which the Government contributes £900 per annum. A special clinic for sick children is maintained at the Colonial Hospital, and there is a Mothers' and Infants' Clinic in Port-of-Spain.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. TRUSCOTT).

Sir BASIL PETO: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Truscott, widow of Charles Henry Truscott, whose last employment was as second officer in the Steamship "Portsea," of Hull, and who had regularly paid contributions for insurance for health, pension, and unemployment for many years before his death in October, 1929; whether he is aware that Mrs. Truscott has been refused a widow's pension on the ground that Mr. Truscott was improperly insured because, on calculations made since his death, it is considered that his total remuneration in cash, food, accommodation, and allowances slightly exceeded the statutory limit of £250; and whether, under these circumstances, he will have the contributions, which were accepted in error and
for which his widow gets no benefit, refunded to her, and, in similar cases in future relating to officers of the mercantile marine, he will see that, in the case where pension is not paid, the contributions shall be refunded to the widow?

Mr. E. BROWN: The late Mr. Truscott, who had paid contributions since January, 1926, was found to have been insured in error, as stated in the second part of the question, and his widow's claim for pension has recently been rejected by the referees on appeal. In cases of this kind the practice is to refund the health and pensions contributions, except in so far as they have already been used in providing the contributor with health insurance benefits, and Mrs. Truscott's case is being dealt with on those lines.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (TRIAL OF MUSLIMS, SRINAGAR).

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether the advocate who was defending the accused Muslims at Srinagar was ordered to leave within 24 hours, with the result that the accused in the murder cases remain undefended, and what steps have been taken by the Government of India in the matter.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have no official information.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries into this matter, which is very urgent?

Sir S. HOARE: I hesitate to make inquiries, for this reason: This is a question that affects the internal administration of an Indian State, and, from the information at my disposal, I can see no reason why the Government of India should intervene.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council what will be the business set down for Friday next?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): Second Reading of the Financial Emergency Enactments (Continuance) Bill; remaining stages of the Veterinary Surgeons (Irish Free State Agreement) Bill [Lords], and of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords]; Second Reading of the Dangerous Drugs Bill [Lords]; Second Reading of the Destructive Imported Animals Bill [Lords], and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Second Reading of the Grey Seals Protection Bill [Lords].

Mr. LANSBURY: I suppose that, if there is time, other Orders will be taken?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MANDER: In the event of there being time, as on the last two Fridays, when there were three hours, will it be possible to take any private Members' Bills that may be on the Paper?

Mr. BUCHANAN: With reference to the Motion on the Paper to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule this evening, what business are the Government taking to-day under that Motion?

Mr. BALDWIN: We are asking for the suspension of the Rule merely to get the first Order, that is to say, the Army Votes and a small Supplementary Estimate.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 33.

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[3.30 p.m.


Actand-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald


Agnew. Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Beaumont, Hon, R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Broadbent, Colonel John


Albery, Irving James
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Bernays, Robert
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Burghley, Lord


Atholl, Duchess of
Slindell, James
Burnett, John George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Borodale, Viscount
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Horsbrugh, Florence
Penny, Sir George


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Petherick, M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Biliton)


Chotzner, Alfred James
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pike, Cecil F.


Christie, James Archibald
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Potter, John


Clarry, Reginald George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Conant, R. J. E.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsden, E.


Cook, Thomas A.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rea, Walter Russell


Cooke, Douglas
Kimball, Lawrence
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cowan, D. M.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knebworth, Viscount
Remer, John R.


Cross, R. H.
Knight, Holford
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred
Robinson, John Roland


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denville, Alfred
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, S. T.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ross, Ronald D.


Donner, P. W.
Leckie, J. A.
Rothschild, James A. de


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lees-Jones, John
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Drewe, Cedric
Leigh, Sir John
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Dunglass, Lord
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Eden, Robert Anthony
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salmon, Major Isidore


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Salt, Edward W.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Elmley, Viscount
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Savery, Samuel Servington


Erekine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Scone, Lord


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Mabane, William
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Capt. J. D. (Ayr)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Falle Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McEwcn, J. H. F.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKeag, William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McKie, John Hamilton
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Fox, Sir Gifford
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Soper, Richard


Ganzoni, Sir John
Maitland, Adam
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F G. (Westmorland)


Goff, Sir Park
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stones, James


Goldie, Noel B.
Martin, Thomas B.
Storey, Samuel


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Gower, Sir Robert
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hales, Harold K.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Halt, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Munro, Patrick
Wells, Sydney Richard


Harbord, Arthur
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
White, Henry Graham


Hartland, George A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
North, Captain Edward T.
Womersley, Walter James


Headla'n Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Henderson, sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hillman, Dr. George B.
Palmer, Francis Noel



Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Patrick, Colin M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Holdsworth, Herbert
Peake, Captain Osbert
Sir Victor Warrender and Major


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Pearson, William G.
George Davies.


Hornby, Frank
Peat, Charles U.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Buchanan, George
Edwards, Charles


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Batey, Joseph
Daggar, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)




Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Hirst, George Henry
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kirkwood, David
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price, Gabriel
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Leonard, William
Thorne, William James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.




Duncan Graham.


Question put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That the following Members representing Scottish Constituencies are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee: the Lord Advocate, Brigadier-General Sir William Alexander, Mr. Anstruther-Gray, the Duchess of Atholl, Sir Adrian Baillie, Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Mr. Boothhy, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Buchan, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Burnett, Sir Samuel Chapman, the Marquess of Clydesdale, Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. John Colville, Mr. Cowan, the Earl of Dalkeith, Lord Dunglass, Major Elliot, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Dingle Foot, Sir Patrick Ford, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Guy, Sir Robert Hamilton, Sir Robert Horne, Miss Horshrugh, Dr. Joseph Hunter, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Jamieson, Mr. James Johnston, Mr. Campbell Ker, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Leonard, Major Charles Mac-Andrew, Captain James MacAndrew, Sir Murdoch MacDonald, Mr. McEwen, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McKie, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Neil Maclean, Dr. William McLean, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. David Mason, Mr. Maxton, Sir James Duncan Millar, Mr. Milne, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Captain Moss, Mr. Normand, Mr. Ormiston, Captain Archibald Ramsay, Mr. Thomas Ramsay, Mr. James Reid, Mr. Albert Russell, Lord Scone, Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn. Mrs. Shaw, Captain Shaw, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Skelton, Mr. R. W. Smith, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Templeton, Sir Frederick Thomson, Mr. Train, Mr. John Wallace, and Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the
Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Hire Purchase (Scotland) Bill): Mr. David Adams, Colonel Crook-shank, Mr. James Duncan, Captain Erskine-Bolst, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. Munro, Mr. Ross Taylor, Captain Watt, Mr. Whiteside and Mr. Jardine Whyte.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SOUTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1932.

Mr. DUFF COOPER'S STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
When, a year ago, the Secretary of State for War introduced the Army Estimates he informed the House that in his opinion the maximum of economy had been achieved, and later in the Debate one of his own supporters, the Socialist Member, at that time, for South Shields, Mr. Ede, said that in his opinion
A force of 148,800 men to carry out the duties of the British Army over the whole British Empire cannot be regarded as a military unit. It is little more than an armed police force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1931; col. 1053, Vol. 249.]
And that opinion was not challenged in the course of the Debate. That, then, was the position a year ago. After two years of a Socialist Government the British Army, in the opinion of a pacifist Member of this House, was nothing better than an armed police force.

Mr. LANSBURY: He is not a pacifist; he was a sergeant.

Mr. COOPER: I do not see why a sergeant should not be a pacifist. It may be difficult to define exactly what a pacifist is, but at any rate he was a Socialist and a representative of his party. He described the Army as an armed police force. In the opinion of Mr. Shaw, the maximum of economy had already been achieved; but within six months of that date the Army Council were asked by His Majesty's Government to make further reductions in expenditure of £3,500,000. These plain facts will give the House some idea of what was put before the Army Council in the autumn of last year, and what they were asked to do becomes still more stupendous when we remember that out of the £40,000,000 which last year represented the Army Estimates £8,750,000 was for non-effective charges for pensions, etc., with which the Army Council could not interfere.
I think it is very much to the credit of the Army Council that they were able to achieve the economies demanded of them, in view of the fact that the economies already made had, in the opinion of Mr. Shaw, reached the maximum. All credit should be given, especially to the military members of the Army Council, without whose cooperation, and without whose suggestions and advice, often given much against the grain in advising things as to the desirability of which they had the gravest doubts, these economies could not have been achieved. They acted in the desire to carry out the orders of the Government, orders which they understood were necessary for the welfare of the country at the time. With other members of the Army Council they assisted in attaining the results, and I think a real debt of gratitude is due to the military members of the Army Council from the House of Commons and the country. These economies are a result of the events of what has been an exceptional and, as we hope, a unique year in our annals. They must not be taken, they cannot be taken, as the standard to which any future Estimates can be expected to conform. I will deal very shortly with some of the principal economies which have been made this year and the House will then see how impossible it will be for any Army Council to achieve similar economies in another year.
This is the first time since the economies of last autumn were introduced that a Minister representing the War Office has had an opportunity of addressing the House, and perhaps it would be as well if I were to explain, briefly, the nature of some of these economies, because I think a great deal of misunderstanding still exists with regard to them. One of the principal economies has been in connection with the pay of the Army. There seems to be an idea in the minds of some people that everybody's pay has been reduced, and that the Army is now being paid at a rate which the Army Council consider too low, of which they do not approve, and which they would like to raise at the earliest possible opportunity. That is not the case. As the House will remember, in 1925 a committee reported on the pay of the Army, and recom-
mended that, in their opinion, at that time, the pay of junior officers and other ranks should be reduced. The rates had been fixed in 1919, when the cost of living was very high. They did not then recommend, that is, in 1925, that any reduction should be made in the pay of senior officers.
The Government in 1925 acted on their suggestion, and introduced the new rates of pay which they recommended. It was a question at the time whether those new rates should apply to the whole Army. The Government, rightly, in my opinion, took the view that it would be very hard on those who had joined the Army on the understanding—a tacit, implicit understanding, but nevertheless an understanding—that the rates of pay prevalent at the time they joined would be continued, if their pay were reduced in accordance with the recommendations of the committee. Therefore, it was decided that the new rates of pay should apply only to those joining the Army after October, 1925, when the new rates came into force. It was not that the new rates were too low, but it was felt that those who had joined at the old rates would have a legitimate grievance if they were reduced suddenly to the new rates. That decision was reversed in September of this year, when it was decided that everybody should be put upon the same rate of pay. Those who had joined before 1925 receiving the same rate as those who had joined since. It was a very severe hardship, an unmerited hardship for a man to be told suddenly that his pay was to be reduced after he had, possibly, entered into obligations on the justifiable assumption that his pay would continue at the old rates. That very real hardship was realised at the time, although it is not to be supposed that in our view anybody in the Army is receiving a rate of pay which is too low. Of course, by a subsequent decision of the Cabinet all reductions in pay were limited to a maximum of 10 per cent. of what they previously received.
The spirit in which those reductions were met is, in my opinion, worthy of a tribute from the Members of this House who voted for those reductions. Not only has there not been, in any unit of the Army, in any part of the world, the slightest manifestation of any open dis-
content, but, so far as it has been possible to ascertain, there seems to have been a very great lack of that natural outlet for the relief of grievances such as grumbling, letters to the Press, and letters to Members of Parliament which have to be handed on to the Minister responsible. That applies to both officers and men in the Army. Really, I think that in September of this year there was in the British Army something of the spirit which possessed it in 1914. Once again the men of the Army felt that the sacrifices demanded of them were demanded in the interests of the whole country, and were necessary for the sake of the country, and when that is understood such sacrifices are always made generously and ungrudgingly. Lest there should be any misunderstanding with regard to senior officers, I would like to point out that, although no reduction has been made in their rate of pay as none was recommended by the 1925 committee, their pay was reduced by a further 3 per cent. in October, 1931, although it had already been reduced by one per cent. so short a time ago as July, 1931, making a reduction of 11 per cent. in all since 1919. This matter was not due to be examined again for two years, and therefore, as a direct result of the economies of September last, all senior officers have suffered a reduction in their pay, not to mention any who were in receipt of salaries of £2,000 a year or over whose pay was reduced by a special cut of 10 per cent.
There has been some suggestion that the Reserve have been unfairly treated in this matter. May I point out that reductions in the pay of the Reserve have, when examined on a percentage basis, been larger than those in the pay of the serving soldier. The facts are, of course, that the Reserve receive their pay not in return for any work that they are actually performing at the time, because they are free to spend their whole time in any other employment, but merely as a retaining fee for their services should the need for them arise. It is well known that before the War a man on the Army Reserve was receiving 1s. or 6d. according to class. Last year he was receiving 1s. 6d. or 1s. Under the present arrangement he receives 1s. 3d. or 9d. Even allowing for the cost of living he is still receiving at least as much as before the War, and I cannot believe that any
member of the Reserve, with those facts and figures before him, can maintain that he has any legitimate ground of grievance.
Another very large economy has been effected by the decision that no annual Territorial Army camps will be held this year. This will save the country very nearly £1,000,000. This decision was taken by the Army Council with the very greatest reluctance, because it was fully realised how valuable the Territorial Army is to the country. It was a heavy blow to ask the Territorial Army to give up their camp even for one year, because these camps are something to which they look forward from the beginning to the end of the year. It was almost as great a hardship as if the Estimates of the Fighting Forces were passed without Debate, which would deprive the responsible Ministers of their one annual chance of addressing the House of Commons. I think that what has been said about the Territorials is a wonderful tribute to that force, and I hope that they will accept this decision in the same spirit as other sacrifices have been accepted by the Regular Army. It should be clearly understood that, so far as it is possible to speak for the future, the Territorial Army will not be asked to repeat this sacrifice next year, because, if the Territorials were to go without the camps for two years in succession, that would be almost equivalent to disbanding them. I do not think that there is any danger of that happening, and in the Army Estimates for next year there will be £1,000,000 required which there is no prospect of being able to save from any other source. Arrangements have been made to hold short week-end camps, and assistance in that direction will be welcomed by the War Office, because we want to give the Territorials as much encouragement as we can.
Another small matter in connection with the Territorial camps which appears to have caused some little feeling is the decision of the War Office to charge for the tents and camp equipment, and also to charge for the damage done to them by the Territorial units concerned. I think the best way to allay that feeling is for the people concerned to realise that they are not being unfairly treated. In order to dispel that feeling, I would like to explain that it was at first proposed
that the annual grant should be £45,000 instead of £50,000, and that tents and camp equipment should be issued free. It was calculated that the cost of this last concession would amount to between £3,000 and £4,000, and those concerned felt that they were doing a generous action in saying that they would increase the training grant to the round sum of £50,000 and charge extra for tents and equipment instead of haggling over this small sum of money. Fortunately civil servants are not politicians. To them two and two invariably make four, and £50,000 is always a larger sum than £49,000. The politician knows better. My view is that if it had been decided to limit this grant to £45,000, and to issue the tents and equipment free, no complaint would have been heard, and the sense of injustice which now exists would have been avoided. If hon. Members who receive these complaints from their constituents will be good enough to convey to them this explanation they may be persuaded that, after all, they are not sufferers by a decision which increased their grant.
4.0 p.m.
Before I leave the question of the Territorial Army there is one other matter which I should like to mention. The question of coast defence has been occupying the Army Council for some time, and a decision has been reached with regard to it during the last few months which materially affects the Territorial Army. Ever since the War there has been a lack of co-ordination with regard to this important matter, and it has now been decided to hand over to the Territorial Army practically the entire responsibility of defending the shores of this country so far as land forces are concerned. I hope that the confidence which the Government thus display in the Territorials may have some effect in convincing them that the sacrifice they have been asked to make this year with regard to their camp was not due to any lack of appreciation on the part of the Government of their great importance, and of the part that they must always play in the great task of Imperial defence. It seems peculiarly fitting that the defence of our territory should be handed over to the Territorial Army—a high responsibility for which, I am confident, they will show themselves to be
in every way fit and competent. It is not only the Territorial Army who have suffered in their training this year; £30,000 has been saved on the training of the Regular Army, and the House may be sure that that £30,000 has been given up with the greatest misgiving by those who are responsible for the efficiency of the troops. The expenditure on training has been reduced so far as it is wise to reduce it.
Those who have been Members of this House for any length of time have seen Minister after Minister standing at this Box regretting that recruiting has not been satisfactory, and hon. Members have shown their ingenuity by suggesting year after year new ways in which recruiting might be encouraged. This year, for the first time for many years, we have been obliged to fix a limit to the numbers that we were willing to receive. We have been able also to raise the standard of height and weight of those who have been selected from among the men who have come up to other conditions. Even so, we have got all the men that we require. We have got a sufficient number of men of a higher quality than have been recruited in previous years.
There is another matter in which we have made a great saving this year, but which we have been very reluctant to make, and that is in the housing of the troops. The standard of houses in this country has, I am glad to say, advanced a great deal during the last 100 years, but I am sorry to say that housing in the Army has not been able to keep pace with that advance. In many parts of England and abroad our troops are housed in conditions which are really unfit not only for troops, but for any British subjects. We are now reducing this year, as far as possible, the expenditure upon them. We have got hutments in various parts of the country such as Larkhill, Colchester and elsewhere which are so flimsy that it is possible to pass an umbrella through the walls. We have got huts in places such as Longmoor and Bordon dating from the South African War, and at Chichester there are some which date from the year 1803.
We are building new barracks this year at Aberdeen. I am glad to say that Aberdeen is the one place where we are not economising this year, but their barracks date from 1789, the year of the
French Revolution. If they had been continued any longer, they might have caused a revolution in Aberdeen. At Carlisle, I am told, the barracks are infested with rats, and at Malaya the barracks are infested with white ants, which eat through the structure and may be responsible for a collapse at any moment. At Pontefract, owing to mining operations under the barracks, they are on the point of falling down, and this year at Armagh some did actually fall down. I am not mentioning these things in order to discourage recruiting, but to show that we are doing everything possible in every department of Army administration to effect economies, and there is, as far as I am aware, no suggestion that can be made for saving more money on Army Estimates which has not been thoroughly examined, and, if feasible, has not been put into force. It is that kind of condition which justifies some of the economies we have made.
There has been one economy which has been a good deal criticised, about which I have had to answer many questions in the House and about which many Members, no doubt, are occupied in their mind. I refer to the decision to close down the Royal Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico. That factory was set up in the year 1855 at the time of the Crimean War, in the Golden Age, or rather the many-coloured age before khaki, when every regiment wore full-dress and each had its separate uniform to distinguish it, when, rightly or wrongly, the highest importance was attached to the correctness of uniform, to the perfection of fit, and when it was held to be sacrilege for the clothing of the troops to be entrusted to the hands of ordinary tradesmen. So far as I am aware, there has not been a special factory for the manufacture of any other clothing of the servants of His Majesty, whether in the fighting forces or elsewhere, but the Royal Army Clothing Factory has grown up in that way, and I may say that at the time no more suitable site could be imagined for a clothing factory than the banks of the Thames, within about a mile from this House, and about the same distance from the richest residential quarter of London. At the time that the factory was set up, it was considered necessary, and large stores of uniforms were collected there before the War.
Year after year since the War the question of disposing of these uniforms has come up for decision by the Army Council, but there have been always a few optimistic reactionaries who have cherished the hope that the day might come when the whole Army would go back to full-dress. I, myself, have the greatest sympathy with the people who held that view, or at least cherished that hope, but in September of last year it was realised that the time had come to make a decision, and although sentimentalists would boggle at the thought of handing over to the theatrical costumier And the producer of films uniforms originally meant to be worn by His Majesty's troops, they were obliged to give way, and the whole stock of uniforms is now to be disposed of for the benefit of the taxpayer. Bright uniforms are no longer in the picture, which becomes drabber and easier for the change.
One of many factors which led to a reconsideration of the whole problem of the Pimlico Clothing Factory was that, unfortunately, it was, and is, the case that the factory does not manufacture the ordinary dress worn by the greater part of the Army to-day as cheaply or conveniently as it can be purchased from the trade. This is due to a variety of causes, partly to heavy overhead charges, partly, perhaps, to old-fashioned methods of manufacture, and partly to the old-fashioned construction of the factory itself. An effort has been made to introduce, into the factory a more modern method of manufacture during the last few years. The experiment has been tried for all it was worth, and to a large extent it has given satisfactory results, but not so satisfactory as to make the manufacture of any article in the factory as cheap as the manufacture of it outside. There is a tremendous saving by purchasing all that we have to purchase from the trade.
These arguments alone would have been insufficient to drive us to adopt the policy which has been adopted but for one very important factor which has been largely overlooked, or, perhaps, not known by those who have complained about the decision to close the factory, and that is that the lease of the factory will come to an end in 1937, and there is no prospect whatever of our obtaining a renewal of that lease on terms which the War Office
could possibly accept. It is obvious that it is not an ideal site for a clothing factory, and we have carefully gone into the question whether to set up a new factory. If it had been decided to set up another factory, it would probably have been somewhere in the North of England, And those who are suffering from the closing of the Pimlico factory—and I do not want to under-estimate the suffering of those affected—the blow would have fallen upon them later rather than sooner. During the years that intervened they would have benefited, but the country as a whole would have suffered. The taxpayers would have suffered considerably, because the economies would have been put off for many years, and when the time came for handing over the lease, the taxpayers, again, would have had to pay, probably, heavy dilapidation charges, instead of receiving, as they are to receive, a substantial sum for surrendering the lease four years before its time.
In spite of all that, the decision was come to by the Government with great reluctance. It is always unpleasant and painful to close down a factory, and put a number of people out of work, and I may say, for my own part, that the fact that this factory was in my own constituency did not make me the more eager to recommend, as r did, this decision to the Secretary of State. The clothing depot and inspectorate will be removed to Didcot. As far as the manufacture of full-dress for the Brigade of Guards is concerned, we are making experiments to ascertain whether this can be performed by the trade satisfactorily or not. If the experiments are not successful, it may be necessary to consider the possibility of setting up a small clothing factory for this purpose elsewhere. It is impossible to make any further statement with regard to that until we know how far the experiments are successful or the reverse.
These are some of the economies we have effected, but by no means all. I have not time to go into them all. We have economised even in such matters as research. In these days nothing could be of greater importance to an armed force than keeping up with scientific development. We have saved £22,000 in this direction. We have economised also in education. We have saved £35,000 in that direction. I am glad to say that, although we have cut down expenditure on re-
search, we have been able to go on with our programme of mechanisation. There has been no alteration in the programme as originally laid down. The Cavalry have been experimenting this year with a new light machine gun, and their experiments have been so satisfactory that they are to be extended and tried upon a broader basis. The Artillery have been testing the practicability of the new light dragon, and this also has been sufficiently satisfactory to warrant the adoption of this machine for a complete brigade. Further mechanisation has been introduced into the organisation of the Divisional Royal Engineers. The Infantry have been practising with small armoured machine gun carriers, and there is to be an increase in the number of mortars issued, in order that as many battalions as possible may take part in this experiment There has been an increase in wireless signalling experiments, and an inquiry with regard to tanks, to ascertain the proportion of tanks of various types which should form part of a tank battalion. It is intended this year again to form a tank brigade for purposes of training. If our savings do not include a reduction of expenditure in regard to the mechanisation programme of the Army, I think the House will recognise that this was a wise decision, since an army that is old-fashioned and out of date is worse than no army at all.
I have spoken of the decrease of £35,000 in expenditure on education, but I am glad to say that, in spite of that decrease, we have been able to keep going our three centres for vocational training at Chisledon, Hounslow and Aldershot, and during the past year more men have passed through those centres than in any previous year. I will not disguise from the House the fact that during recent months the numbers of men applying for these courses have been steadily going down, and the situation is being carefully watched by the Army Council. It may be largely due to the fact that the new rates of pay have just come into operation so far as men leaving the Forces are concerned, and that, under the new rates of pay, the fees which they have to pay for these vocational training courses are too high. I am not sure of that, but we intend to inquire into it, because we fully realise the im-
portance of these vocational training centres.
The ideal at which we are aiming, and which is not impossible of realisation, is to ensure that every young man who joins the Army shall, while he is in the Army, be able so to equip himself that, at the end of his period of service, he will have certainly a better chance of employment than if he had not served in the Army. There ought almost to be a feeling of certainty that such a man will readily obtain employment in civil life, and, if we can once attain that level, it will be a double benefit, from the point of view of the Army and from the point of view of the country as a whole. We should then be able every year, during our recruiting period, to choose from the best of the young men of the country, because, instead of feeling that the Army is a sort of last resource, they will feel that it is a splendid training, giving them seven years of vigorous, healthy, active life, and leaving them at the end of the period fitted and almost certain to obtain employment. At the same time, every year there would be coming into the industrial market these men who had been through this period of training, and who would be not only skilled craftsmen, but also disciplined soldiers. I hope that employers will realise that such men are the best men that they can get. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of this vocational training scheme, and it is hoped that nothing will ever be done that will cause it to lose the position which it already has in the Army, and that there will be no failure to impress the men with its importance and its good effects. Even in the depressing circumstances of the past year, the proportion of men from these vocational training centres who have obtained employment is as high as 75 per cent. If the advantage of the courses were really known, I feel sure that men would come forward very freely to take advantage of them.
This leads me to mention an important decision which the Government have taken, and which, perhaps, should be explained to the House. I announced it shortly before Christmas, and it was so well received that perhaps no explanation is necessary. I refer to the decision to grant full recognition once more to the Cadet Corps. This decision reverses the one taken by the previous Government,
but I do not want the House to think that it was just taken on the spur of the moment, in the spirit that anything done by the last Government was wrong and the sooner we altered it the better. On the contrary, full consideration was given to every aspect of the case before the decision was arrived at. It was felt, and I think rightly, that the decision of the Labour Government to withdraw recognition from the Cadet Corps had been taken as a gesture towards the pacifist feeling in the country. Many of that Government's supporters had doubtless been disappointed with their record on the question of Disarmament, and I think it was felt that there was some need for a gesture, and this was the gesture which was decided upon.
It is not the wish of His Majesty's Government to do anything to outrage or hurt that section of opinion which demanded, and was pleased by, this decision. It is only because we feel that it was a wrong decision, ill calculated even to achieve the object for which it was designed, that we have decided to go back upon it. When it was taken by the Labour Government, there were protests all over the country from religious and teaching bodies, headmasters of every type of school and religious leaders of every denomination from the Archbishop of Canterbury downwards, saying that the Cadet Corps fulfilled a most valuable function in the training of boys in this country, that in many cases it gave boys in the towns almost their only opportunity of healthy exercise and of getting into the fields, and that it would be a great disaster to withdraw recognition from it, or do anything to discourage it.
In my opinion, it must be the first object of every Government to avoid war, and the abolition of war between civilised countries is an ideal that every rational man must sustain. But it is no use trying to stop war by hushing it up. It is no use, in my opinion, trying to educate children in ignorance of the evil that exists in the world, and treating war as if it were one of those unpleasant subjects which could only be mentioned among grown-up people, and must not be spoken of in front of children. That really was the meaning, so far as I could ever see any meaning in that decision of the Labour Government—that it was terrible for children to know that there
were such things as armies, although, on approaching the age of 17, the full truth might be broken to them. The time may come when we shall be able to do without armies, but I do not think the time will ever come when we shall be able to do without the military virtues—courage, loyalty, the qualities of leadership, the spirit of self-sacrifice—qualities that are best taught through experience of discipline and the habit of obedience. It is because we believe that it will contribute to engendering these qualities in the youth of the nation that we have decided to extend recognition once more to the Cadet Corps. No grants have been made to them this year, but I understand that those who are at the head of the movement are entirely satisfied with the action that has been taken.
During the last few weeks the attention of everyone in this country has been fixed on the small detachment of the British Army which is carrying out a very grave responsibility in the Far East. It has had to perform the most difficult duties that soldiers can be called upon to perform—to maintain neutrality among bitterly hostile factions, and to maintain calmness and coolness in times of danger and good humour under pro-vacation. To say that these duties have been carried out in a spirit worthy of the traditions of the British Army is, I think, sufficient; to say more would be unnecessary. Owing to the incidence of the trooping season, we have been able slightly to increase the garrison without in any way altering our arrangements. The battalion of the Wiltshire Regiment which was going to relieve the Second Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers has arrived, and the Scots Fusiliers have remained in addition. We have transferred from Hong Kong one battalion of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, together with a mountain battery of the Hong Kong—Singapore brigade. We now have four infantry battalions and one battery at Shanghai.
It may be that, when the history of what has taken place in these recent weeks at Shanghai comes to be written, it will be found that to nobody is greater credit due for what we hope will be the comparatively happy outcome of these events than to the British officer commanding on the spot. Brigadier Fleming has been asked, as so many British
officers have been asked in the past, to show not only the qualities of the soldier, but those of the diplomatist and statesman, and I think it will be found when the full story is known, that he has shown those qualities to a degree of which anybody might be proud. As for the troops themselves, I was told the other day by someone who had come back from Shanghai, and who knew China well, that five years ago the anti-British feeling in China was extremely bitter, but that in the town of Shanghai, of which he spoke, it seemed to have disappeared altogether. He put this down very largely to the competence and behaviour of the British troops on the spot. That has happened before, and here again the British soldier has shown himself to be one of the best ambassadors of peace. I am sure that the whole House will join with me in sending a message of congratulation and good will to this small detachment who, so far away from their own country, have been upholding so nobly during the last few weeks both the cause of peace and the honour of Great Britain.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am sure the House will agree with me in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the very able way in which he has performed the always difficult task which an Under-Secretary of State for War or Financial Secretary has in introducing the Estimates of his Service. The hon. Gentleman has given us an extremely interesting account, and has raised several points of general interest. Before dealing with the particular points, some of which he has raised and some of which arise naturally from a consideration of these Estimates, I should like again to draw attention to one general point. One cannot really consider Army Estimates entirely by themselves. This week we are considering Estimates for the three fighting Services, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. We are considering them in three separate compartments, but, in effect, they are only one department of one subject, the subject of defence. All the Ministers who have spoken so far have said that they have effected enormous economies. They have all protested that they have gone to the very limit of cutting down, and that they are hardly able to say that their respective Services will be, with
this expenditure, in a satisfactory position to defend this country. The remarkable thing is that we are spending something like £100,000,000 on armaments between those three Services. £100,000,000 is being spent on defence 14 years after the close of the Great War, at a time when we are supposed to have departed from the very idea of war—to have renounced war. The point that struck me in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, as in that of the hon. Gentleman to-day, was that there was nothing in either, or in the tone of them, which could not have been said just as well at any time during the past 100 years, without anything having ever been done towards disarmament, without there having ever been any proposal for a League of Nations, and without there having been any Covenant signed by the leading nations of the world. We on this side do not profess to be in the least satisfied that the country should be spending £100,000,000 a year on armaments. We do not stand here for continuity of policy. We believe it is merely an indication of the general insanity with which the world's affairs are conducted that at a time like this, when everyone is calling out for economy, we should be asked to spend £100,000,000 on armaments.
The next point to which I wish to call attention is the disadvantage at which we are always placed owing to the fact that we never have any real exposition of the defence policy of the country. We have Estimates put forward. The First Lord gets up and touches here and there on the question of the Atlantic Fleet and changing its name to the Home Fleet. He deals with the question of trade routes and so forth, but there is nothing of a comprehensive survey of the position in which we find ourselves or of the real strategy of the Empire and its relation to the world forces in arms. No doubt, the Air Ministry will make much the same sort of speech. The hon. Gentleman did not deal with defence policy at all. He merely said we had not enough. He did not even outline what is the role of the British Army. That is because no one of these three Ministers can speak authoritatively on defence. We have never in my recollection had joining in these Debates either the Prime Minister,
the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord President of the Council, or any of the leading Members of the Cabinet to expound the defence policy of the country. If we ask a question on it, we are told that is all dealt with in the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Committee of Imperial Defence, no doubt, does excellent work, but is is one of those things that work rather in secret. The House knows nothing whatever of the decisions or the discussions in the Committee of Imperial Defence and cannot debate it unless by any chance a Motion is brought forward on some private Members' day on the general question of the defence of the country.
I have said that we get no reference at all in these speeches to the fact that we are living in a time when the leading nations of the world are supposed to have renounced war. We always discuss this as if we were still surrounded by a host of potential enemies, although we are supposed to be closely tied by the Covenant to a number of other nations all desiring peace. It is very difficult to discuss defence policy when you do not know on what strategic and political considerations it is based. I could understand a defence programme based on certain realities of alliance or hostility between the nations of the world. I could understand a defence programme that was definitely based on the fact that we belong to the League of Nations and that we have certain obligations under the League of Nations which we should be prepared to fulfil. I cannot understand the kind of indefinite policy that is put forward by Ministers responsible for the various defence services. The First Lord yesterday was discussing mainly the need of defending our commerce. He did not say who was going to attack it. In the same way we have to-day the obligations of our land forces. We do not know who is going to attack us, or whether anyone is going to attack us or not. We shall, doubtless, be told we must have an Air Force of a certain strength. I have no doubt the Under-Secretary of State for Air will be unable to tell us which particular nation we must come up to in strength for fear lest they should overcome us.
The trouble of this kind of haphazard, unconnected defence organisation is that we get a maximum of expenditure for a
minimum of security. Armaments that are put forward by one nation as the irreducible minimum for its security form a potential menace to another nation on which it bases its defensive armaments. It is most desirable that we should have a comprehensive discussion of the defence policy both of the British Isles and of the British Empire. That policy should be laid down clearly by a responsible Minister. It should not be in terms of Navy, Army or Air Force, but in terms of broad defensive policy. Let us know what the dangers are to which we are exposed and let us know how we are going to meet them, but do not let us year after year vote millions of pounds on Estimates brought forward in a speech which, admirable as it was, did not attempt to deal with any principle at all, but merely dealt with a number of interesting little details and a few little explanations. But there is really no excuse when the nation is asked to spend all these millions on the Fighting Services.
Besides that, the House ought to face up to a wider question. If you read these Estimates, you will see the distribution of the land forces of the Crown. You will find that some are located here. We have also an army in India, which does not come in these Estimates, and you find armaments in Bermuda, Malta and various places overseas. I do not think we have ever had tale principles of the defence of the Empire discussed in the House. The Statute of Westminster having now been passed, and the Dominions having come into absolute equality of status with the Mother Country, the whole question of the responsibility for Imperial defence is one that wants our consideration. The problem of India, now coming up for discussion, is one of very great urgency. If you discuss Indian matters with Indian statesmen, they will tell you that India pays far too much for the defence of the North West Frontier, which is an Imperial obligation. On the other hand, we maintain that we are defending India from her enemies. Sooner or later, and I think sooner, you will have to face up to that question of Imperial defence and Imperial frontiers, and you will have to get some idea of what is the line of demarcation between the responsibility of a particular part of the Empire for its defences and the responsibility for Imperial defence in the larger sense,
which in my view should be borne by the whole Empire. To my mind, we have been going on for years on the principle that used to be known in the trade union movement as the method of the governing branch. This was the governing branch and this governing branch paid the piper. I think the old lion has borne the lion's share in providing defence, and it is time the whole matter was thoroughly discussed again.
I do not want to go to any length into that rather hardy annual, the question of a Ministry of Defence. I am aware that a good deal can be said on both sides. But we ought to have a Minister to speak on general defence questions as apart from Ministers who are necessarily concerned only with a particular service, Army, Navy or Air Force, and I believe that Minister should be the man who presides over the Committee of Imperial Defence. I believe, too, that he should be a man who is furnished with a staff, so that he will be in a position to take a broad view, and an informed view, of the rival claims of the Fighting Services, because there is no doubt that there is a certain rivalry in their claims. He should be able to come here and expound policy, and he should not be the Minister for War, or even the First Lord of the Admiralty, but he should be essentially a Minister for peace, because that, after all, is what you want. The Financial Secretary is not at the War Office because he wants to make war. He is there to see that peace is secured. It may be that the methods he adopts there are those that ultimately bring about war. It has occurred with some of his predecessors. The whole object of the Army is not to have war, but to have peace, and, therefore, a defence Minister should be essentially a, peace Minister. When we have had disarmament Conferences I have always thought it unfortunate that a Minister representing either the War Office, the Admiralty or the Air Force should go there and enter into technical discussions with the heads of the Fighting Services of other countries, and that there is not that co-ordinated defence outlook on which these matters would be discussed on a much broader footing than is possible to people whose interests, after all, are concerned with only one arm.
Apropos that, I should like to be told a little more about the Imperial Defence College. It was started in 1927, and you have there a gathering of officers from the three branches of the Service, from India and from overseas. They are concerned, according to the memorandum, with broad questions of Imperial strategy. I should like to know what result has been attained so far and I want to know what has happened to the officers. I gather that they spend a certain time there and do very useful work. I have talked to them myself—officers of the Navy, Air Force and Army. They get an unrivalled grip of defence problems from a broad point of view, and then, as far as I can make out, they are dispersed. One goes back to his ship, another to command a regiment, and in a year or two they are quite rusty on all these problems. If you are to have an Imperial Defence College, you should build up an Imperial Defence staff, which should consider defence questions, not from a narrow departmental view, but from a broad point of view. It seems to me that a really well-informed staff like that, drawn from all the Services, representing not only the home country but other parts of the Empire, would be just the sort of people to surround the Minister who goes to discuss Disarmament. I think he would then have a far broader point of view.
I would next like to draw attention to the very unsatisfactory method in this House of dealing with Army Estimates, as with Navy and Air Estimates. A few days before the Estimates come on we receive this handsome volume full of figures. It calls for a great deal of study, and I think generally a certain amount of previous knowledge to get anything out of it. This is what we are supposed to discuss at this moment—pages and pages and pages of figures. We do not discuss figures by debating them on the Floor of the House. We can only discuss figures and Estimates properly if we meet round a table and have an official there to explain them by question and answer. It is high time, if we are to get any economy in the Army, that this House should change its method of dealing with Estimates. There is another very bad feature of our financial control that appears in these Estimates, and that is the all-over cut. You suddenly get a cut. Orders are sent to the Secretary of State
for War or the Admiralty or the Air Minister that there must be a cut of so much per cent. That is not a scientific way of going about the matter at all. No one can say offhand whether the amount of such a cut is going to do more damage to this Service or to that Service. To my mind, one Service probably wants its expenditure repressed and another encouraged. The haphazard way of saying "Cut off so much," is entirely wrong. It illustrates the fact that the methods of the Treasury and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer want a great deal of overhauling before we shall get a satisfactory arrangement.
With regard to the War Office, I have a very high opinion of the financial organisation there. It was developed antler Lord Haldane's reforms, and was worked out in detail by a very great public servant, Sir Charles Harris, and to my mind economy is applied at the War Office even better than in most Government Departments, because it is applied steadily all the time, and there is not the haphazard kind of check that one gets by the ordinary Treasury procedure. I would emphasise that, because it is up to every Member of the House to consider carefully, after the conclusion of the Debates on these Defence Estimates, how little has been done. We have had no satisfactory discussion of defence policy and no detailed consideration of finance, and in the interests of economy and efficiency it is time that the House devised some other way of dealing with the Defence Service Estimates.
I want to deal with one or two points apart from that general question. First, I would ask a question with regard to the present cadres. Have the War Office made the necessary examination of possible changes that might lead to increased efficiency and increased economy in the Army? There is a great deal of the vis inertiae in military affairs. We find that the formations tend to come down to us unchanged from one generation to another. Old customs hang on long after their utility has departed. The particular point to which I would call attention is whether we have not got to-day a higher proportion of officers to men than is really required. The proportion was settled roughly a long time ago, when the average man in the ranks was far less educated than he is
to-day and when the tradition in the Army was that a man was not there to think. From some things that the Financial Secretary said, I rather gathered that he still does not think very highly of brain work. I notice that he has economised in education and research, which seems to show that attitude. But we have to-day in the rank and file a far more highly educated body of men than were to be found in the old Army, and I do not think they require the same amount of supervision as those of the old Army did. The old idea was that a private did nothing unless a lance-corporal told him how to do it, that the lance-corporal had to be told by the corporal, and the corporal by the sergeant.
I notice that the proportion of officers to men in the Infantry is 1 to 25, 1 to 21 in the Cavalry, and 1 to 20 in the Artillery. I think that figure is probably too high and that it ought to be looked into from the point of view of tactics. In the old days, in fighting, there was a mass of men who had to be led forward against the enemy, and for that you were obliged to have a large number of officers. But war, as we learned recently, is an intensely individualist thing to-day. A man finds himself in some position and has to act for himself. Therefore, I say that we want a smaller number of officers and a greater development of initiative among the men. We shall not get initiative in the field unless we get it as far as possible in the ordinary peace-time soldier. That matter is worth looking into. As a particular instance of the disproportionate number of officers to men, take the ease of the Household Cavalry. The figures there are remarkable. It takes 24 officers and 46 warrant officers and noncommissioned officers to command 364 men. That is one to five men. I do not know the reason for that extraordinarily large number, but it certainly seems to be a waste of officers. Apart from the question whether economy might not be better achieved by the abolition of the Household Cavalry, the high proportion of officers is a matter that should be looked into. I am not at all sure that the staffs of Commands are not too high. Attention has been called to this matter before. It may he argued that we must have staff officers to provide for expan-
sion in time of war, but on the whole I believe we are rather profligate with the number we have on the staff compared with other armies.
My next point relates to the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico, about which the Financial Secretary spoke. The hon. Gentleman seemed to show an extraordinary lack of appreciation of the reasons why, in 1855, the Army Clothing Factory was started. The hon. Member seemed to think it was an experiment. I dare say he has read Major-General Forbes's book, "History of the Army Ordnance Services." If not, the book will repay reading. He will find there the kind of stuff that the contractors served up to the soldiers before the factory was started—rotten cloth and rotten leather. There was jiggery-pokery of every kind going on. The year 1855 lives in most people's minds for two reasons. One is the work of Florence Nightingale, and the other is the question of the boots, all made for the left foot, which were sent out to our troops in the Crimea. It was the golden age, the hon. Member said. It was the golden age of the corrupt contractor, and that is precisely the reason why the Army Clothing Factory was introduced. It was not an experiment by some awful Socialist at the War Office. It was introduced by a practical administrator. Major-General Forbes says:
The Army contractor's sole interest was his profit, and he was notorious for scamped work.
It was as the result of the experience of clothing the Army through private contractors that the Government eventually decided to make itself responsible for clothing the Army, and the Pimlico Factory was established in 1863. General Forbes wrote:
This novel experiment of the Army making its own uniforms had several advantages. Contractor's charges could be checked with those of the factory.
Have we got so much more moral since 1855 that we do not need to check the contractors? Does the Financial Secretary not know what happened in the War? Does he not know the extent to which the charges for all sorts of munitions came down when the thing was taken in hand by the Government? The
figures came tumbling down. Yet this is the time when the Financial Secretary is going to throw away his yard-stick for measuring the honesty of the contractor. General Forbes also wrote:
In the cheap tailoring trade, the most sweated and underpaid of industries, there were several middlemen's profits before the unfortunate sempstress got any wage; these were saved in the factory. Work was less likely to be scamped, and the danger of garments becoming infected with disease in the worker's home avoided.
That was the reason for the institution at Pimlico. It had another advantageous result, that of reducing the chaos of patterns of clothing in the Army into some sort of order. There is no doubt at all that the Pimlico Factory introduced a very great reform in Army clothing. Now it is proposed to close it down. It will mean a saving, we are told, of £25,000. But the War Office is sending out about 750 people. Who are these people at whose expense the saving is to be made? They are people who have been given a job because they are the relatives of fallen soldiers, the daughters and widows of fallen soldiers. There are cases of three and four sisters working together in the factory. They are all to be thrown out, and it will not be easy for them to get work. We are told that work is to be found for some of them, say, in Edinburgh. How are they to shift their belongings there? Most of them will have to take up work as they can, and before the War Office are through with the business the State will have spent much more than £25,000 in unemployment benefit, and we shall have put ourselves back in the hands of the contractors. The hon. Member said Pimlico was in his constituency; well sweated tailoring is in mine.
5.0 p.m.
The Pimlico factory was admittedly an efficient factory. The Financial Secretary know s that during the Labour Government changes were introduced there in the direction of the division of labour and the adoption of efficient modern methods and that part of the factory paid. The Financial Secretary referred to the heavy overhead charges. What is the real reason for the changes now proposed It is partly bias in favour of private enterprise, and partly the distaste of the War Office for anything that has to do with constructive work. I think it is probably due to the War Office civilian staff. They do not like the
bother of a factory, or having anything to do with industry. That is very unfortunate, because the civilian staff at the War Office are much stronger on the critical than the constructive side. They want this type of experience. The War Office have closed down the factory and have got rid of the lease. I do not know what terms they got, but it should not be impossible to get another site. Does the hon. Member think that this is the proper time to do this sort of thing? It is not easy for women who have been working for 40 years in that factory to get another job. The Government have shown the greatest lack of consideration for those workers. I know that they are having the greatest difficulty in finding employment and are suffering great hardships. It is a thoroughly bad and shortsighted example of cheese-paring policy to close down a factory which not only produced work but enabled the War Office to keep a check upon the voraciousness of contractors. I am not attacking British industry in that regard, but the voracious army contractor has been a, figure in history since armies began to move across the world.
I was gratified with what the hon. Member said with regard to the vocational training centres, and I hope that they will continue to be successful. I was struck rather by one point which he made in regard to recruiting, which has suddenly been lifted up. It is only too true that bad times are the greatest recruiting agents. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to get additional economy by abolishing the recruiting department, for, as affairs in this country become worse and they continue to cut down wages, the Army will be able to recruit without having any recruiting officers.

Brigadier-General NATION: As one who has had no previous training or experience in politics and has taken on a new profession rather late in life, I feel that I must ask for an even greater measure of that sympathy which this House always accords to a new Member when he first makes a speech. Even now I should not have risen, but the very serious nature of the subject which we are considering to-day makes it impossible for me to remain seated. Quite recently, and for a period of four years, I was intimately connected with one of the great armies on the Continent. The
very cordial relations existing between the highest authorities in that country and myself were of such a nature that I had facilities to go almost anywhere and see anything I liked. It was a privilege that is rarely extended to the representative of a foreign nation. Therefore, I have perhaps rather a unique viewpoint in studying the Estimates of the British Army. I confess and say at once that I am alarmed at the proposals which are being made.
During the last five years the armies of France, of Italy, of Yugoslavia and of Russia have all had substantial increases in their Estimates. Only this morning we saw in the Press that the Army Estimates for France are being increased by no less than £5,000,000 for this year. With the experience of the Great War, and with the military activities of foreign nations all round us, and with the situation in the Far East as a warning, it is amazing that we can reduce our Army Estimates at the present time by £3,500,000. I realise that the Government have to study the whole field of economy in this country, and take our relations with foreign Powers into consideration before they come to a decision what amount of money to allocate the various Defence Forces. Having allotted that money, the redistribution as far as the Army is concerned rests with the Army Council. I do not complain so much about the reduction in the total amount; it is because of some of the items from which the money has been withdrawn that I am anxious. It is true that in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War which accompanies these Estimates he says that the savings are only "temporary and transitory," and that "they cannot be maintained in future years." He also admits that "the measures involve a definite and obvious loss of military efficiency." The Secretary of State for War said that, but we must remember that last year the Economy Committee presided over by Sir George May said:
We are satisfied, from the evidence submitted, that ale present strength of His Majesty's Forces is no more than adequate for requirements under present world conditions.
Further on they say:
Large-scale economies must, await further reductions in the strength of the
Services, which in turn must depend on general agreement on the policy of international disarmament.
Those two statements are pretty clear evidence of our position to-day. I do not know if the Government have any indication of the likelihood of a satisfactory issue at Geneva, but I confess, after having lived on the Continent for the last five years, that I can see no indication whatever of any likelihood of any of the foreign nations reducing their armaments in the near future. Therefore, naturally I am very anxious as to what is happening in this country. I only wish to draw attention to one or two items, because I would rather press home one or two points than make a, long speech at the end of which hon. Members might say, "I wonder what the dickens he did say." First of all, I refer to the question of training. As far as the Regular Army is concerned, the allotment this year for training is £70,000. Last year it was £110,000, and in 1927 it was £130,000. We have made a reduction of 50 per cent. in five years, while the strength of the Army in personnel has remained about the same. I would not complain so much about the Regular Army because the Regular Army is training throughout the whole year upon ground more or less suitable for the purpose, close to the barracks, so that to forego the manoeuvres or camp for one year is not vital to the safety of the nation. When, however, we come to the Territorial Force and we see a reduction of £1,000,000 in this year alone for the Territorial Force and the Supplementary Reserve, and that they are not to go into camp at all and are not to have any manoeuvres, I think that the matter is so serious that the House and the public should be informed of the position. The Secretary of State in his Memorandum says that
the annual camp trainings of the Territorial Army and the Supplementary Reserve are not to take place and that a saving of £1,000,000 has thereby been secured.
We all in this House remember the famous Blue Water School who said that we could sleep safely in our beds. Nobody listened to the warnings and pleadings of that very great man Lord Roberts which, over and over again, he expressed in the House of Lords and in the Press and elsewhere, and in a very
few months afterwards the Great War was upon us. We might well ponder over the words of Lord Roberts to-day. The anxieties and sufferings which the people of this country went through in the first few months of the Great War are very acute in the minds of us all. We remember how our Expeditionary Force went out and was almost annihilated in the first few months, and that we had to wait for months and months until new armies could be trained and sent overseas. Those months of waiting were perhaps the most anxious and precarious for the Empire that this country has ever known. With all that experience before us, we are making these great reductions today. After the first few months, for the remaining three years of the War, we were represented practically entirely by the Territorial Army and the new Armies. During that time they had to face some of the greatest battles in history. Yet with all this experience, we are not going to train the Territorial Army this year. I regard this as a real calamity. It can only be excused by the most pressing and insuperable need for economy. I could not excuse it upon any other ground. I would prefer to see the Regular Army give up some of its training and to allot the money instead to the Territorial Force.
I will now come to my second point which relates to the Officers Training Corps and the Cadet Units. The Officers Training Corps this year is to have a grant of £64,000 as against a grant of £109,000 last year, or a cut of very nearly 50 per cent. in one year, and the whole of it in regard to training. The Cadet Units, up to 1930, received a grant of about £10,000 per annum calculated at the rate of 4s. per qualified cadet. But in that year a peace-loving, but I am afraid, rather ostrich-like Secretary of State for War in the late Government withdrew the recognition of those Cadet Units and cut off the grant. I should like to extend my heartiest congratulations to the present occupant of that high office for his courage in restoring the recognition to those units, although he cannot at present renew the grant of money.
In my humble opinion as an ex-service man, the Officers Training Corps and the Cadet Units of this country deserve all the encouragement and all the financial assistance that we can afford. Upon them
should rest the responsibility for training the manhood of this country. I do not believe that they should engender a sense of militarism in the young, but they should educate their minds and their bodies in order to foster the spirit of adventure, love of travel, enterprise, and esprit de corps which, alas, I am afraid, appears to be declining at the present time among our young men. I would suggest to the Secretary of State, with all humility, that he might study the "Balilla" system which Mussolini introduced into Italy about six or seven years ago and which to-day numbers no fewer than 1,500,000 boys. That innovation has made a change in the manhood of Italy which is something extraordinary to behold. If we could adopt something like that in this country, without any attempt at militarism, it would be of the greatest possible benefit. Full reports on that system are in the War Office—I must be forgiven for saying that I wrote them myself—they are there to be studied, and I am prepared to help in any way I can. They are worth looking at.
Last week I put a question to the Financial Secretary, and he said that £13,000 was allocated last year for the cost of changes of station between Regular Army units in the United Kingdom. I notice in the programme of changes this year that there are about the same number of units which are due to change stations at home. I know that changes of station are very desirable. I liked them myself, and I would not deny them to my friends in the Army, but in times like the present I suggest that it seems hardly worth while, for example, that the 1st Battalion of the Inniskilling Fusiliers at Hollywood, in the North of Ireland, should change stations with the 1st Battalion of the Border Regiment at Bordon, near Aldershot, and that the 4th Hussars, the 8th Hussars, the 3rd Carbiniers and the 1st King's Dragoon Guards should play a sort of musical chairs between York, Colchester and Aldershot before they decide which of them falls out and goes to Egypt. It seems hardly worth while in times like the present. I am sorry to say that, but it is my duty to do so. The programme of changes this year affects three Cavalry regiments, two batteries of Horse Artillery, five Brigades of Field Artillery, eight battalions of Guards and 11
battalions of Infantry, all at home. One can imagine all the changes involved, the transport of the men, their wives and families, the officers' horses and the equipments, all of which have to be transported up and down the country. I would like to see that money saved this year. I would like to see all changes of station withheld entirely this year, that the changes should be made, perhaps, every two or three years in times of national crisis, and that the money thus saved should be used for the training of cadet units, or, failing them, for the Officers Training Corps.
I feel that I have already exceeded the short allowance a new Member is supposed to have on the first occasion that he addresses the House. There are a number of other items to which I should have liked to refer, but I will not say anything about them now. I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that the days of the old Regular Army are dying. Modern war is no longer fought by Regular Armies, but by the manhood of the whole nation. About 10 per cent. of the whole nation in the case of a serious war has to take part, and that nation which prepares for the enrolment, training and organisation of its manhood is the one that has the best chance of surviving when the day of trial comes. If we have to make cuts in the Army, and the Government are the judge of that, the cuts must be made, but I would prefer to reduce, say, one or more of the Regular units—if we have to make a permanent reduction and not a recurring reduction—and instead have more and more Territorials, Officers Training Corps and Cadet Corps. We know the old argument that one must have a battalion at home for every battalion abroad. That argument is very hard to kill. It was taught to me as a cadet and almost to the last minute before I left the Service, but I believe that with a will that difficulty could be overcome. I believe that our Regular forces abroad could be maintained from depots or from some other means to be devised at home. But for goodness sake let us keep the Territorials, and let us keep them in training.
If we cannot afford a volunteer Army such as we have had now for many years—we are the only nation that has a voluntary Army—then let us be honest and adopt some other system like the Conti-
nental system, modified for our purposes, but let it be trained. A small army is bad enough for any country but to have one which is not trained, is to court disaster. There must be many hon. Members in this House and a large percentage of the population outside who have personal experience of what war is like under modern conditions. It is nothing short of murder to send troops to face a modern army unless they are trained. Speaking from my experience of the Mediterranean and my knowledge of the enormous Air Force of Italy, which is within 12 hours' flying distance of Malta, with their Air Force and Naval base in the Aegean Islands, which is closer to the Suez Canal than we are, I should like to leave the problem to the Committee as to whether our communications with the Far East, the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal are considered to be secure.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The House will desire me to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) on his admirable maiden speech. He has issued a grave warning from his own personal experience as military attache in Italy. I am certain that the lesson to be learned from his speech must have impressed the Committee and that we shall await his further intervention in Debate with interest. I have listened to a good many Service Debates and I must say that I have never heard two more admirable expositions of the Estimates than we heard yesterday and to-day. The First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday and the Financial Secretary to the War Office today struck the same note in calling attention to the drastic economies which have been forced on the country owing to our financial position. It must make anyone who is responsible for the safety of the country feel grave concern to see the way in which we are cutting down our defence forces, whilst other countries are increasing theirs. We are all anxious for Disarmament, but I cannot help feeling that unilateral disarmament has been carried too far in this country. Indeed, in the unfortunate event of the League of Nations requiring this country to apply sanctions, considering the great demands upon us for police purposes I do not believe that we should be in a position to
back up our bond to the League of Nations.
I should like to criticise the Memorandum which has been issued by the Secretary of State. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull in what he said about the serious situation that arises, seeing that we have cancelled the annual training camps of the Territorial Force. The confession in the Memorandum that these are drastic reductions of services which are essential to the efficiency of the Army, is a very serious confession. There is one other aspect which has not been touched upon, and that is that there has been a reduction of the grant for training. It is most important that the senior officers of the Army should have an opportunity of commanding large forces in the field both from the tactical and administrative point of view. It is now several years since there has been anything greater than divisional training, and I am sure that the senior officers in the Army must demand that there shall be greater opportunity for training than that.
5.30 p.m.
I must stress the lack of accommodation in some barracks. Men should not be compelled to live in quarters which are insanitary and an insufficient protection from the weather. The Financial Secretary did not refer to the question of married men's quarters, and I should be glad to have an assurance from him that the condition of married quarters has been improved from what they were a few years ago. According to the Memorandum the regular artillery in future are to carry out practice camp biennially. That is bad for the efficiency of the artillery, and I suggest that it might be possible to attach officers who are not due for their annual training to units who are to carry out the practice for that year. During the past two years the Estimates Committee of this House has been endeavouring to secure greater coordination in the bulk purchase of stores for the three Services. There is a provision of £120,000 for barracks and hospital stores, and I should like to know whether these stores are purchased by the War Office or obtained through the Office of Works. On previous occasions we have been told that the War Office do not regard the Office of Works as a suitable medium for the purchase of
stores and furniture, although the Office of Works supplies the Navy and the Air Force and I believe many of the Army Commands throughout the country. I cannot see why the purchase of these stores should not be carried out through the Office of Works, who are already engaged in doing this work on behalf of many other Departments of State.
The figure of £25,000 has been mentioned as the saving on Pimlico, but I can hardly think that that is a sufficient amount to make it worth while disturbing those who have been employed there for so many years. There must be other reasons which have induced the Secretary of State to agree to that cut. A very large sum is spent on the pay of inspectors and their staff. The Army, apparently, undertakes the inspection of clothing on behalf of the Navy and the police. I want to kno4w whether they carry out the purchase of clothing as well as the inspection. If it is advisable for the inspection of clothing to he done by one department, it is just as well to have the bulk purchase done by one department instead of departments bidding against each other. I am not satisfied that there is proper co-ordination in this matter, and the avoidance of overlapping in the making of contracts. The same consideration applies to small arms and machinery. There is also the question of works, buildings and land. The War Office employs a number of land agents of some experience and spends a considerable sum of money on buildings and land. For agents and valuers alone there is an annual charge of £15,400. In the Navy Estimates there is a charge of £45,000 for works and land. I want to knew whether the Army does the estate agency work for the Navy and Air Force. It is not clear from the Estimates. The work is the same whether you are buying land for the Navy or the Army, and it is much better to have the work done by one single body purchasing on behalf of the three Services.
In these bad times there is little to criticise except to view with regret the state into which the Service is reduced at the present moment owing to the shortage of money. At the same time, further economies could be made and the money saved could be spent far more usefully if there was more co-ordination in the purchase of equipment and in those ser-
vices which are common to the three arms. If the Office of Works is efficient and run on business principles—I am certain that the present First Commissioner of Works is to be trusted—then real economy could be secured by co-ordination and by the bulk purchase of stores and furniture and land by the Office of Works. Let me in conclusion congratulate the Financial Secretary on the admirable exposition he has given us of the Estimates.

Mr. TINKER: I should also like in the first place, to congratulate the Financial Secretary on the lucid exposition he gave us of these Estimates for the Army. Apparently, he did not use any notes, and he must have a very good memory indeed. He mentioned the British troops in Shanghai and said that they had made a very good impression there. Anyone who has had any connection with the British Army will agree that the British soldier, wherever he goes, makes a very good impression on the people. It is one of the traditions of the service. Anyone who served in the Army during the War felt that he was proud to be a. British soldier because of the way they were received by the people with whom they came into contact. The Financial Secretary stated that they had been able to make some saving on almost every item except the amount spent on training purposes. I was sorry to hear that, because I think there should be a progressive reduction in armaments. We must have a progressive reduction in our expenditure if we are to give a lead to the world and show that we do not want war.
There has been a total saving of £3,420,000. Out of 15 items there is a saving on 13, and an increase on two, and I should like to know how those increases have taken place. In connection with miscellaneous effective services, the expenditure in 1931 was £558,000. This year it is £879,000, an increase of £321,000, or a 57 per cent. increase. That requires some explanation. Then on Vote 15 there is an increase of £14,000, upon which I should also like some information. In regard to the Household Troops, there is one item in the Memorandum which is not very pleasant reading. It says:
For the rest, it has unhappily been found necessary to postpone still further the improvement or replacement of barracks and huts which are falling below the required standards.
Economy can be false economy if it is practised on the health of the men. The health of the men has been fairly good, but no one can say that it will remain so if they are not properly housed. If you want contentment and satisfaction an essential condition is that they should live under healthy and sanitary conditions. It is not the actual fighting which troubles the soldier very much, but the conditions under which they have to live are important and if they are not satisfactory you cannot get your real fighting man, the man who is up to the required standard. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to see that the men are properly housed. I hope there will be no economy in that direction. Then with regard to cavalry regiments. The mechanisation of the Army is for the purpose of removing what are called obsolete units, and in these days cavalry cannot be called a useful arm of the Service. It is a spectacular part of the Army, but there is no reduction in this branch of the Service this year, nor was there last year. The total for the cavalry is 8,115, the same as last year. I think there should be some reduction in cavalry regiments. Take the Household Cavalry in. London. There are 48 officers and 886 of all ranks, with 510 horses for their convenience. Will anyone tell me that these are necessary in times like the present. I quite agree that for parading through the streets and engaging public attention they are quite nice and pleasant to look upon, but in times when economy is necessary we do not want to retain that kind of thing. The Financial Secretary has said that an old-fashioned army which is out of date is worse than no army at all. The Household Cavalry come under that description. They are old fashioned and out of date. There is no need for them, and I hope that close attention will be paid to this matter. Last year when we were considering the Army Estimates I mentioned this point, and although Mr. Thomas Shaw in his heart agreed with me he was unable to get away from the influence of the War Office. He said:
It is perfectly true, and one might as well confess it, that the cavalry in London are really an appanage of Royalty. At the same time they are trained soldiers, and as the War showed in, case of emergency would have to take their place in the
ordinary way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1931; col. 294, Vol. 250.]
Mr. Shaw then told the House that there was no need for them, and that they were really a "show" brigade. If we say that we are out for economy, and that we are prepared to cut down expenditure in every possible direction, is it fair to have this cavalry regiment parading the streets of London showing off and attracting people to look at them, when we know that other and more useful branches of the Service are being cut down? I say that it is not fair, and I shall take the opportunity on all occasions when it offers of protesting against this kind of thing. I do not speak as one who wants to do away with the Army altogether. I believe that while there are armed forces in other countries, we must have an armed force, but I want that force to be as efficient as possible, and not to be carrying a redundant arm of this kind. Last night during the Debate on the Navy Estimates an hon. Member who is a supporter of the National Government referred to the fact that the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve was to be cut down. He said that he could not ask the First Lord to restore that expenditure because economy was just as urgent now as it was before, and he used this expression:
We must remember that every penny spent comes out of the pockets of the working man."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1932; col. 1584, Vol. 262.]
If that is correct, and no one can deny it, then any branch of the Service which is not efficient or is not worth its place, ought to be cut away and those pennies saved to the poor man's pocket. I hope that next year when the Financial Secretary comes before us again he will have taken into consideration the views which we are urging upon him to-day and that he will cut away, as far as he can do so consistent with efficiency, branches of the Service like the Household Cavalry which appear to have no use at all and to be no good either to the Service or anybody else. If the people of London desire to have these cavalry for the purpose of attracting visitors, then let the cost go on the Civil Service Vote. Let us know exactly what the cost is for, or, if the cost cannot go into that Vote, then let the London County Council take it over themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Why not, if it is for the purpose of attracting visitors to London?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: Has the hon. Member ever looked at the battle honours of the regiments which he is abusing so heartily?

Mr. TINKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean the battle honours belonging to these cavalry regiments?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I am referring to the honours which these regiments won in battles, in the last Great War and in many other wars before then. The hon. Member is trying to make out that these regiments are purely ornamental. I say that that is untrue.

Mr. TINKER: Every one of us who fought in the War attained some honour for trying to save the country. Any citizen who went out in the Great War brought some credit and honour to the country. If some particular regiments have records of that honour, that is a satisfaction to them, but all I am trying to point out now is that redundant arms of the service ought to be cut away. If Londoners want this spectacle of cavalry parading daily in the streets of London, they ought to bear the expense and it ought not to come on the Vote for the Army. That is my protest and I shall continue to make that protest at every opportunity until I am able to impress on the Secretary of State for War, whoever he may be, my reasons for doing so.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: Among the minor calamities which overtook the Socialist party as a result of the General Election is the fact that they have been doomed in this House to listen to more than 200 maiden speeches of which this, I regret to say, is only the 99th. I trust, however, that I shall receive that consideration from the Members of the House, which is always extended to those who seek to emerge from the ranks of the mere inarticulate Lobby fodder. We are considering to-day Estimates for a sum of something like £36,500,000 and I would associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Attlee) when he referred to the difficulty of considering these Estimates in the very short time during which they have been in our possession. It is an almost impossible task to do so, but I am encouraged by the suggestion of the Financial Secretary to the War Office to attempt this afternoon a few criticisms, which, I trust, he
will regard as helpful. In connection with the search for economy, which I believe is universal in the country, I would say at the outset that economy is not to be obtained by curtailing necessary expenditure. Real economy is obtained by seeing that the country obtains value for the money which is voted in respect of particular services.
In case there should be any misunderstanding I should like to say that I am not in the least a believer in uni-lateral disarmament. I believe with the May Committee that this country has gone as far as is possible, consistent with safety—in fact I have grave doubts as to whether there is safety—while other nations retain their present scale of armaments. However, I do not propose to trench on the Debate which I understand is to follow on that subject. I regard the economies which are being suggested here as bad. I use the words of the Secretary of State for War himself when in his Memorandum he describes them as being achieved by:
a drastic suspension or retardation of many services essential to the well-being and efficiency of the Army.
I cannot but think that anything which leads to a loss of efficiency in the Army must be a false economy and one to be avoided. Are these cuts, amounting to £3,500,000 really necessary in the particular manner in which they are being made? I hope to show the Financial Secretary to the War Office that there are certain avenues which might be explored and from which he might get some revenue which has been overlooked. I know that numerous committees have examined various aspects of Army expenditure from time to time. There was the Geddes Committee as long ago as 1922 which recommended a cut of £20,000,000 and made certain other recommendations. From that time onwards other committees like the Assheton Pownall Committee, the Carpenter Committee and the Ramsay Committee, have dealt with certain departmental aspects of Army expenditure. But the only Committee which has done work of real value to us in our present emergency has been the May Committee which sat last year and which was designed for the purpose of considering the whole expenditure of the country with a view to effecting economies. That Committee had only four months in which to pro-
duce its report and naturally it was only able to make a superficial examination of the problem of the defence forces. In fact, very few pages of its report are occupied with suggestions in regard to defence, but even in those few pages are to be found numerous valuable suggestions which, if followed up, would, I am certain, produce economies without loss of efficiency. If I may again refer to the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War on that point, he says:
Minor variations …
that is from the May Report—
relating to education, inspection, research, etc., were offset by equivalent economies in other directions.
I am tempted to ask whether it would not be possible, in addition to making these equivalent economies in other directions, to make the economies which the May Committee decided, even after such a short examination, were quite possible for the Army. The first and and one of the most important recommendations of the May Committee in this connection is
that each of the Services should be examined immediately after the Disarmament Conference in order to determine, in the light of the conditions then prevailing, the organisation best fitted to carry out the national requirements with the least expense.
That cannot be done with advantage unless there is first some preliminary work and I shall presently make a suggestion which I should like the Financial Secretary to consider with regard to the sort of preliminary work which is necessary. I suggest some sort of stocktaking against the day when that Committee has to sit. I hope I shall be forgiven if I touch briefly on some details of these Estimates which seem to be susceptible to reduction and are certainly worthy of closer examination. Although the Financial Secretary has said that in his opinion no further economies can take place that was not the view of the May Committee.
I take, for example, Vote 4 dealing with education. The May Committee there recommended a cut of 10 per cent. and said that they considered the proportion of administrative instructional and general staff to the number of officers under instruction as high, and that reduction was possible. I have looked to see what has been done as a result of
that suggestion. I find that although £35,000 has been saved on education it has not been saved on those parts of the Service which could bear a reduction: Establishments like Woolwich, Sandhurst and Camberley show figures which are practically stationary. The reduction has been made in the case of schools in the fighting arms and I should have thought that it was far more important to maintain those schools at a high standard of efficiency than the others. Everyone knows that the earlier training is largely lost sight of when practical work has to be done. That training is theoretical to a large extent and most people forget what they have learned in those institutions when they become practical soldiers.
6.0 p.m.
Then I come to Vote 7 which relates to clothing. I refer to this with a certain amount of trepidation. Indeed it may be a case of "Poole's rushing in where Angels fear to tread." Here, again, there has been recommendation by the May Committee in respect of clothing allowances. They said that a 10 per cent. cut on the clothing allowances should be made which would produce £55,000, but when we look at the Estimates we find that that saving has not been achieved. There has been a saving but that saving has been made on the Pimlico factory and is not the result of cutting the allowances. If you look to see by how much these allowances have been cut, you find that they are only down by about 3 per cent. I suggest again that there is another field for economy in that recommendation.
I come now to Inspection, Votes 8 C and 9 B. I wonder how many Members realise that with £3,000,000 worth of stores which are covered by inspection, it costs the country £450,000 to inspect them, or something like 15 per cent. I wonder how many business undertakings could afford a charge of that kind and remain solvent. I may be told that in addition to the stores which are shown here, there are war stores, which, of course, quite properly, are not disclosed, but I am bound to point out that the Secretary of State himself, in the Memorandum circulated with the Estimates, said this:
Surplus stocks of stores accumulated during the War are now approaching exhaustion, with the result that progressively
increasing provision by purchase has to be made.
The May Committee recommended that the present percentage should be inspected, and that a 10 per cent. cut at least should be effected, but here again that has not been done.
Now I come to the question of Research, on which a certain amount has been said to-day. There has been a saving, according to the Financial Secretary, of £22,000, but the figure to-day is £617,000. When the Geddes Committee sat and considered Army Estimates of £75,000,000, it recommended that the figure which was then being paid for research, of £1,250,000, should be cut to £600,000, and we have not reached that figure yet. There is certainly room for a very close investigation of this question of research, for another reason, that although it is necessary that the army should be kept up-to-date, yet it is a fact that the more research we carry out, the more expensive does the army become in consequence of it, because you are constantly changing your material and equipment. When you get industrial research, that is usually dealt with and restrained by the profits which have to be earned as a result of its possibilities, but this factor does not arise in the question of the Army or the Navy. Therefore, it is a matter that ought to be very closely watched. I would again refer to the May Committee Report, which says that at least a 12½ per cent. cut ought to take place. There has not been anything like that in respect of research.
Examining the Estimates further, one finds that the non-effective charges are referred to by the Secretary of State as being no less a sum than £8,300,000,
which are not susceptible of direct reductions, and have indeed grown steadily in recent years.
That seems to me an extremely serious state of affairs. If you look at Vote 13, you will find that the 1914 and 1931 establishments are there set out. I would again, if I may, refer to the May Committee's investigation of this question of non-effective charges, and, I think that here there is a possibility of effecting a considerable saving. The May Committee point out that quite different considerations arise in the case of the Air Force establishment and the Army and Navy. They say:
The essential requirement of a combatant service is a high proportion of fairly young officers.
Then they say:
In the Air Force, there is a large element of short service recruitment. Speaking broadly, only such number of officers are engaged on permanent commissions as can hope to find careers in the Service, allowing a margin for selection in the filling of higher posts. In the Navy and Army, on the other hand, officers are normally engaged on pensionable tenure, and reliance is placed on limitation of promotion, followed by the compulsory retirement at early ages of those who are passed over.
They go on to say:
We think that the whole scheme of pensions in the Fighting Services calls for immediate examination in the light of its extremely expensive character.
I will give the House some figures as to the establishment, which appear in the Estimates themselves, showing the percentage of officers of high rank who are unemployed at the present moment. There are six Field Marshals, of whom five are unemployed; there are 20 Lieut.-Generals, of whom eight are unemployed; and there are 75 Major-Generals, of whom 17 are unemployed. My submission is that you must reduce the establishment in order to show a more reasonable surplus of officers, or you must adopt the method of the Air Force and go in for short-term recruitment. That would undoubtedly produce an economy, not immediately, but spread over a period of years, which would reduce these noneffective charges. I find an item marked "Stores," on Vote 8 B, and I would refer to the impossibility of really considering, on the Floor of this House, details such as we have put before us. In that Vote there is £440,000 worth of stores, and out of that figure £250,000 worth is described as "Miscellaneous." How is it possible to examine, criticise or comment on figures like that?
I was very interested to hear what the hon. Member said about vocational training, and it was very gratifying to know that that training was being so successfully carried on, but I would like to ask him one or two questions about the matter. I believe that the practice is for men who are leaving the Army to be trained for some six months before they actually end their period of service, and that at various centres different forms of training are carried out. I believe that at Aldershot training in carpentry, brick-
laying, plastering, and so on is gone through. I notice, according to the figures, that some 800 men went through last year at Aldershot. It must be known that there are many thousands of troops at Aldershot and probably very extensive maintenance and repairs to be carried out. Do any of these men who are being trained in the vocational training centres take part in the work of repair and maintenance at, say, Aldershot? It must be possible far them to do some of the work there. Or is the practice for the Garrison Engineers to put out the work to outside contract, and for these men who are being trained vocationally not to take part? Would there not be a saving if those men who are being trained in the vocational establishments were put to do the work which outside contractors now do?
I do not wish to go any further, except to make a remark or two about the War Office. I listened this afternoon to the answer to a question put by an hon. Member, and the figures that were elicited, I remember, were 1,800 persons at the War Office in 1914 and 2,200 now. That is a very astonishing state of affairs, and one notices that the figure required to keep the War Office going is some £818,000. One notices also that:
Since 1904 the main organisation of the War Office has not been fundamentally altered, although various changes of detail were made before the outbreak of the Great War.
What business with a similar turn-over could go to its shareholders with a statement of that kind, that after 28 years no change had taken place in the main organisation, when one remembers the vast changes that have taken place in the whole theory of war, and when one remembers the changes brought about as a result of all the modern inventions which have come into being in that period. But the War Office apparently is so successfully organised, as a result of the Esher Committee, I think it was, in 1902 or 1903, that it has never moved since that date; and it only requires 400 people more to-day than it did in 1914 to look after a smaller Army. I think it is only reasonable to make that criticism. I hope I have not made it in an unreasonable spirit, but it strikes one as being a matter which ought to be investigated, and certainly one feels that there could be an economy.
Now I come, after certain destructive criticisms, to something constructive, and my suggestion to the hon. Member would be this: I am told that the House has a very bad opinion of committees and commissions, but I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should now appoint a small committee of two or three business men, who would be advised by a staff officer of great experience, some person who holds high rank in the Army and who would be competent to advise in connection with the matters to be investigated. I suggest that that committee should not sit in some room here or elsewhere, but should go about and see for itself, that it should go into rooms and say to people, "What are you doing?" and that it should find out what they are doing. I venture to think that an examination of that character, carried out by two or three business men who understand the problems of transport, of feeding, of housing, and various other factory problems which arise every day in business houses, might be a very useful thing to have.
I may be quite wrong, and what I am suggesting may be futile and useless, but it will not be expensive, and I think it will be useful; and if I am wrong, the expense will be very small and possibly negligible. It is possible, I expect, in these days to find public-spirited, retired business men who would probably give their services free, and so far as the officer is concerned, I suppose he would have his ordinary pay. I ask for that committee, because I am satisfied that the work cannot be done inside the War Office itself. You cannot possibly expect people who are working in the War Office to think that anything much is the matter. It may be that this suggestion will be uncomfortable to some people, but the first consideration is the efficiency and well-being of the Army, and if by some chance we have to be ruthless in obtaining that efficiency, then we must not shrink from being ruthless. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will consider this proposal and, if possible, put it into operation. May I, in conclusion, thank the House for the very patient and courteous hearing which it has given to me?

Mr. AMERY: I should like to congratulate most heartily the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Gluckstein), who has just spoken, on a most interesting
and most practical contribution to our Debates. He has dealt with a number of topics affecting the administration of the Army, as a great business, in a businesslike spirit, and I am sure that his suggestions will be welcomed and carefully considered by the representative of the War Office. There is one point on which I did not find myself altogether in agreement with the hon. Member, and that was when he criticised the expense and numerical strength of the War Office. I have heard a great deal since the War of the argument, as affecting both the War Office and the Admiralty, that a smaller total force should not require a larger headquarters staff. After all, the size of your headquarters staff depends not upon the numbers of your force, but upon the complexity of the problems with which it has to deal.
No war office in the world has a more complex military problem to deal with than the British War Office, and yet its general staff, its intelligence sections, and so on, compare very favourably from the point of view of smallness of numbers with those of great powers which have comparatively simple problems to deal with. Again, every new device or weapon which is introduced, either in the Army or the Navy, creates its own administrative and strategic and training problems, which have to be reflected in additions to the strength of the general staff, of the training staff, of the material sections that deal with the matter. If I may give an illustration of the problem, I will put it this way. The number of keys required on a typewriter depends not on the number of letters to be written, but on the number of letters in the alphabet of the language which you are employing; if you use a language with a complicated alphabet, you will have to use a great number of keys for a comparatively limited correspondence. That is only one point which was raised by my hon. Friend out of many other points in which I found myself very largely in agreement.
We have been fortunate in the maiden speeches which we have heard this afternoon. A little earlier we had a most admirable speech from the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation). While the hon. Member for East Nottingham dealt with the Army as a business organisation, the hon. and gallant Member dwelt upon the
Army as a great instrument to prepare this nation for the dangers that may confront it in time of war. The practical suggestions which he made in his speech were valuable in themselves, but even more impressive was the sense of danger, of the gravity of the situation, which ran through it and which was emphasised by his wide experience in other countries. Not only in the speeches of hon. Members to-day, but in the statements issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, we are confronted with the fact that our defence equipment is entirely inadequate to the needs of our defence. No considerations, not even those of the gravest financial urgency, can more than very temporarily justify such laches in the necessary provision for our safety.
It is clear in that connection that this, if ever, is the time when we ought to consider very carefully the whole structure of our defence system to make sure that we get the fullest value out of it. The hon. Member for East Nottingham has justifiably drawn attention to minor details in which economy is possible. But big economies can only be effected if our whole defence system is properly adapted to its end and the different elements in it properly correlated to each other. I entirely agree with what was said on this subject by the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) as to the necessity of properly co-ordinating the parts that the Navy, the Army and the Air Force should play in our defence, and in urging the importance of discussion in this House not on one defence force alone, but on all the defence forces taken together. At the same time, I am a little surprised that the hon. Member seemed unaware that the remedy was very largely in his own hands. It is for the Opposition to ask for a day to discuss the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence. On that Vote, for a good many years past, it has been within the power of the Opposition to secure an effective discussion of the whole of the problems of our defence, and not merely of the problem as it affects a particular Service. So I look forward with interest and anticipation to a request being made by the Opposition in the near future for a day on which we can discuss that vitally important question.
The hon. Member also raised an issue more directly bearing on to-day's Esti-
mates, namely, the policy for which the British Army is organised and whether its organisation bears any relation whatever to our strategical needs. I think that one can say with regard to both the Navy and the Air Force that their organisation and their strength are planned with some sort of relation to the functions which they may have to fulfil in war. It is impossible to say that that is true of the British Army. For nearly 60 years it has been organised on a basis which frankly makes no attempt to coordinate the Army which we can produce on mobilisation to the purposes for which it will be wanted in time of war. The whole basis of our structure is the Cardwell system, a system by which the strength of the Army which we can mobilise is fixed by two factors. One is the strength of the various garrisons which have to be maintained in different parts of the world, including India, for purposes largely unconnected with strategy in war; and the second factor is the total length of service and the number of years required to keep a young soldier before he is physically fit to serve in an oversea garrison. The soldiers who are in training for the oversea garrisons constitute the home units. These skeleton training units, strengthened by the reservists who remain over after the total period of active service, make the force available for war, but a force whose size bears no relation whatever to any particular military problem which we may ever have to confront.
Only once in the course of the last 60 years has an attempt been made to break down that adhesion of the regular officers at the War Office to the simplicity and convenience of the Cardwell system. That attempt was made by the late Mr. Arnold-Forster, who endeavoured to create an organisation which would, by a double period of service, provide a career for the man who wished to make his career in the Army, and by a short period of service provide a really large reserve; thus to enable us immediately to dispatch a small force on the outbreak of any serious emergency and to follow it up shortly afterwards by a very much larger Army than anything we had contemplated in the past. Unfortunately, Mr. Arnold-Forster's scheme was not put into effect before the Government of which he was
a Member fell, and his successor, Lord Haldane, had not the courage to carry the scheme out. There was a time when Lord Haldane's services to the Army were greatly underrated. It is also fair to the memory of his predecessor to say that if Lord Haldane had not gone back to the Cardwell system and simply confined himself to giving the best organisation he could to its product, but had carried out the plans worked out by Mr. Arnold-Forster, we should have had at the outbreak of the Great War a far larger force available for that War, and we might have been spared incalculable loss both in lives and in treasure in consequence.
That is the kind of problem with which we are faced because of our financial position, and which we ought to thrash out in this House. The Government ought to face the whole question of what our Army is for and how its period of service and period of reserve should be adjusted, not to immediate administrative convenience, but to our strategic needs. That should be thought out more seriously than it has been at any time since the Great War. At the same time, we ought to consider more carefully than we have done before, and with perhaps less of that old regular soldier bias, which is undoubtedly very strong in the War Office, the proper relations of our reserve forces to the Regular Army. I was delighted to hear the stress which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull laid upon territorial and cadet training, which, from the long point of view, is money far better spent than money spent on retaining one more regular unit. We have to look not to immediate dangers, but to dangers which are drawing near. The foundation of the nation's military training matter a good deal more than immediate efficiency in one or other of the items of equipment of the Regular Army. I hope, therefore, that we shall face seriously the problem of the whole reorganisation of our defence forces. If we face that rightly, we shall solve it on the most economical lines possible.
6.30 p.m.
But I am not so optimistic as to hope that the greatest economy, in effective organisation as well as in detail, will enable us to defend our peace adequately on the kind of Estimates to which we have been reduced in the last few years.
It is inevitable that for an Empire of the size of ours, and with problems like ours, the Estimates for the defence forces will have to go up. And the money will have to be found. That involves a heavy burden, but I think that we sometimes tend to over-estimate the weight of that burden a little. We talk of the "crushing burden" of £100,000,000 for defence, when, after all, it is only 10 per cent. of our total local and national expenditure; and that burden has certain compensations, such as employing a part of our population in giving them training of a high physical and mental value, and a good deal of that expenditure conduces, and may be made to conduce even more, to the promotion of research, and may be made to help industry in many ways. We have to face the fact that the whole problem of our defence must in the future be taken more seriously than it has been during the last few years. I think the years of fond delusion are nearly over. The harsh facts of the situation in the Far East to-day are speaking far more eloquently than any evasive formulas or pleasing fictions that can be concocted at Geneva. We have got to face the fact that our own peace, that our power to contribute to the peace of the world, is going to depend in the future, as in the past, upon our armed strength, and that any undue weakening of our forces, any incapacity on our part, any drifting towards the position of a China, is going to bring the calamity of war nearer to ourselves and, possibly, to other nations.

Mr. LAWSON: Listening to the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman and to other speeches from Members of the Government during the past two days, expressing the spirit which they embody, one can scarcely believe that this is a Government which went to the country and appealed to the people on the ground of economy. When one thinks of the speeches made on platforms up and down the country, and the appeals made to unemployed men to submit to reductions, and then hears speeches like that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Gluckstein) and others, one can scarcely credit that this House was elected to promote economy. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman means well, but I wonder whether he knows this
Britain of ours, whether he knows anything of the lives of the people who have suffered reductions during the last six months or so. As one who saw some little service, as one who was in the War Office, as one who does not wish to see the country throw up its hands and realises the point of view which has been put forward, I can yet tell the right hon. Gentleman that if that is to be the attitude of mind which is to rule during the next year or two, it will breed in the country a spirit with which, in the long run, it may be very difficult for Parliament or any other organisation to deal.
The hon. Member for East Nottingham, in his very incisive maiden speech, supported the point-made by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that the House of Commons finds it difficult to analyse the Estimates. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, though he spoke easily, and made what may be described as a comparatively able speech from the Government point of view, knows very well that, although he has combed the Estimates, he has been saying in his heart during the last few weeks, "I hope to goodness the House of Commons will very carefully overhaul this book of the Estimates." He must be very conscious of the fact that even he, with all his knowledge, finds it difficult to keep a grip on the expenditure for which he is responsible. We have a book of Estimates here covering an expenditure of £37,000,000, dealt with under 15 heads and filling 350 pages. If hon. Members had had this book in their hands for a few weeks they could not have analysed it thoroughly, but it was presented to us only a few days before these Estimates come up for discussion, and yet we are asked to overhaul this large expenditure as stewards of the people in order to see that the money has been property spent.
It is time that the Government considered seriously the proposal of the hon. Member for Limehouse that there should be a separate investigation of the Service accounts by a committee. I know that the Public Accounts Committee overhaul the expenditure to some extent, but able as that investigation may be, it is by no means thorough, and even the members of that Committee would admit that it is impossible to make a thorough
examination, seeing that they have to deal with practically all the Departments of the State. Therefore, if we are to get value for our money, this House must, sooner or later, set up some definite organisation to overhaul this expenditure. There is an expenditure of over £1,000,000 upon general stores and of £2,000,000 upon warlike stores. Do those stores actually exist, and, if they do, is that the proper value of them? Who values them? Who knows whether that is the proper value, or whether in reality it may not be double or treble? What is the method of doing the work? Nobody knows. I wonder whether the Financial Secretary knows. He can tell me who does the valuing. Really, there ought to be a closer watch over these matters. Then there is an expenditure of £2,500,000 upon works. I am very pleased to see that some of this expenditure is for the proper housing of men and officers. It is sad that some 13 or 14 years after the War we should see numbers of soldiers still housed in very questionable types of huts up and down the country.
Here and there throughout the book one sees the statement that the existing accommodation is unsuitable. Take the case of Catterick, a comparatively new camp, established to be what was called the "Curragh of the North." The accommodation for the units in that camp is estimated to have cost something like £1,500,000. I think the Estimates show that something like £28,500 is to be spent this year, and there are quite a number of other sums—£10,000 and £30,000. They are to be found on page 195. I would ask the Financial Secretary whether it is not time that the whole design of Catterick was settled, that the housing accommodation was finished, and that there was some sort of finality in the arrangements there. That is necessary for the health of the soldiers. Catterick is in a very exposed part of the country, it is a detached place, and by this time the troops there ought to have been sure of securing adequate accommodation. There, again, the question comes in of whether we are getting full value for our money. What is the value of the houses and the barracks which have been built, and how
long will they stand? There are rumours of jerrybuilding in the case of the accommodation for the soldiers—jerrybuilding such as created the slums. I have heard rumours that the quality of some of the building is very questionable. One does not expect a great camp like that to be completed in five minutes, but from the point of view of providing proper accommodation and of bringing the expenditure on the camp to an end, the work ought to be completed quickly, so as to avoid this dribble and drain of funds year after year. In this case are we getting value for our money? This is the sort of thing with which the House of Commons can deal, and a committee should ascertain exactly what is being done.
Then there is under the same heading the question of the abolition of the clothing factory at Pimlico. After the criticism which has been made on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house, there is scarcely any necessity for me to refer to the subject. All I wish to say is that the winding up of the Pimlico clothing factory seems to me to be one of the most unbusinesslike things that was ever done by a public Department. The closing of that factory is uneconomic, and it will certainly do much damage to people who have up to now been employed by the War Office. I think that the Financial Secretary will agree with me when I say that the contracts department at the War Office has to be eternally on the alert in their dealings with the various firms from whom they buy goods. If there is any organisation which has business knowledge at its disposal enabling it to keep a grip on the people with whom it does business, that organisation is the War Office. The Financial Secretary could give dozens of cases almost from memory of dealings for the supply of boots, meat, and food, in which if the War Office had not some means of bringing pressure to bear on the people who supplied them with those articles they would be bound to become the victims of rings, and they would be exploited more than any other business organisation in the country. With the knowledge which the War Office possesses as to the possible exploitation by private firms in regard to the supply of articles necessary to feed, clothe, and house the soldier, it is not only unbusinesslike, but it is un-
economic and wrong to close the factory at Pimlico.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house said that stage by stage the War Office has taken these questions out of the hands of private exploiters, and placed them under the control of Government Departments. Everyone knows that if there happened to be a war to-morrow we should immediately adopt that policy for our own protection. The Government, by closing the Pimlico factory, are not merely saving £22,000; they are not merely robbing the people in that district of their work, but they are wiping out the experience which the War Office has gained in the conduct of a business organisation of that kind. No doubt the Financial Secretary will tell us that the Government cannot compete with private firms in these matters.
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman has ever considered the very definite analysis which has been made in the comparison between the cost of production at the Pimlico factory and other Government Departments and private firms. We used to get the exact cost, point by point, of the things supplied to the War Office by contractors and the cost of similar goods made in Government Departments, and, as a rule, the Government Departments supplied the goods cheaper and, in some cases, at half the price quoted by private contractors. I remember on one occasion calling attention to the fact that while the bakers in London were selling the loaf at 11d., the War Office was producing the loaf at 5½d. If we compare pound for pound in cost, I think the Pimlico factory could compete with any ordinary business organisation.
I have great respect for the staff at the War Office, and by their activities during the last few years they have shown themselves to be very efficient. It is true to say that it is a military Department, and they have not the necessary industrial psychology. They do not want to be bothered with wages, and the trouble arising from the running of an ordinary factory. I hope that that is not the spirit which is going to prevail at the War Office. There is nothing to meet the arguments which have been put forward by the Member for Limehouse on the point that the lease of the Pimlico factory will run out in four or five years' time. That is no answer to the argument which I have put forward, that in view of the
history of the Pimlico factory and the reason for its establishment, it should not be closed. I am aware that the War Office does not like the industrial psychology of these questions. I wonder if we shall hear the same argument in reference to Woolwich Arsenal, in view of the attempt which is now being made to abolish armaments. I hope that the War Office is going to have another look at the Pimlico question, not for the sake of the workers alone, but in the interests of the country.
I wish to say a word or two about the education question. I notice that there is going to be a re-recognition of cadet corps. There may be good reasons for taking that course, but the reasons which have been given by the Financial Secretary are not the only reasons. It is claimed that in the training given to cadets courage and loyalty are developed, but will anyone deny that those qualities are developed by the miners and the ordinary workers? I am surprised at that argument being used, because it is well known that when War broke out there was no lack of the qualities of courage and loyalty among the workers who joined the Army. Nobody was surprised when we discovered that those qualities were so highly developed when War broke out.
7.0 p.m.
I would like to ask the Financial Secretary what has been the result of giving commissions to rankers? A man who passes through the ranks in the Army becomes very intelligent and develops qualities suitable for the rank of officer. Is it possible to increase the numbers who are passing from the ranks to commissions? Serious attention should be paid to that point. I would like the ordinary citizen to consider the various stages through which an officer passes, and note the amount that is paid to the various ranks. It may be said that these men have shown great ability. That may be quite true, but I would like to tell the House that if this kind of thing goes on in the case of officers side by side with a reduction in the maintenance allowances for the unemployed, the people of this country will not stand it any longer. It may be said that these pensions to officers are not too generous or too high, but everyone knows that officers are placed in good circumstances, and are treated much better in comparison with the great mass of the
workers of this country. I urge the hon. Gentleman and the War Office, if they are going to maintain the present numbers of the Army and get the fullest value for their money, to take steps to obtain a more insistent and incisive analysis of these Estimates. I would urge upon the Government to bear in mind the position of the great mass of the people when they pass Estimates of this kind. To those who think that they can increase these Estimates indefinitely, I say that they cannot continue a policy of that kind without danger of no Estimates and no Services at all.

Captain ARTHUR HOPE: I would like to congratulate the Financial Secretary on the presentation of these Estimates, but I would have been more pleased to have seen him present them as Minister of Defence, a position which I hope before long to see him occupy in his political career. I am certain that under a Ministry of Defence you would get more efficiency and more economy. That, however, is not a subject which we can discuss on this Vote. These Estimates are important and extremely interesting because, unless there is some general scheme of disarmament throughout the world, I do not see how the War Office can cut these Estimates another year one penny lower. There may be objections to certain individual economies this year. One, in particular, is the abandonment of the Territorial camps. That may be necessary but, as the Financial Secretary said, although it may be necessary this year, it cannot possibly happen another year or the Territorial Army would be doomed. There are other ways of economising, possibly small ways, but none the less effective, and those economies could be used in order to spend more money on the training of the Territorial Army. Various speakers this afternoon have said that in future the Territorial Army is the important army of this country. I agree, because a future war—if there ever are future wars and I hope, as one who went through the last war, that there will not be—means a war like the last war on even a greater scale, and every able-bodied man having to go out as he did last time. Therefore, some citizen army is essential to the future.
How can we economise in any directions other than have been shown by these
Estimates? I cannot agree with the Financial Secretary or with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) about the satisfactory state of the War Office. I, myself, have never been in the War Office, but I have been on the staff of two commands, the London District Command and with General Harington in Constantinople eight or nine years ago. I am convinced that there is an unnecessary amount of paper circulating about in these various headquarters and in the War Office in particular. I have seen clerks spend day after day writing out completely useless memoranda addressed to every branch, not only in the building, but in the whole Command not "for your information and necessary action" but "for your information." All these papers are filed, and you get files piled high in a week or so with stuff that will never be looked at again. All that means labour and waste of time. I am satisfied that if some small committee were appointed, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Gluckstein) in an admirable maiden speech, to go into the War Office and to find out exactly what every officer and every clerk, every civilian and every soldier, was doing, you could make cuts there.
I remember how in an expedition sent out in a hurry in 1922 to Turkey there was a brigadier, a brigade-major, a staff captain and a transport officer. Soon after the brigade-major fell ill, and the transport officer was moved elsewhere. The whole work of the brigade was left to the brigadier and staff captain. Did the work suffer by that? Not in the least. There are, to my mind, too many staff officers on a peace footing and also on a war footing. During the War we know that the headquarters staff was extraordinarily well run in France. Compared with the French Army, however, and I believe with the Italian Army, and certainly with the German Army, we had far more people on the divisional corps and army staffs than all the other armies put together. When we go through the Estimates for economies, we can cut down the staff officers not only at the War Office and at Aldershot and Catterick, but also in our armies abroad, in Shanghai and elsewhere. I have had some experience of being a staff officer of a brigade, and I know that there is not enough work to do in peace time for
the three or four officers in headquarters. I could myself do all the staff work done by three people.
A question was raised by the hon. Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) about moves in this country. He referred to the moves, the "musical chairs," of certain cavalry regiments, but there are certain moves that take place not far from here of the Brigade of Guards. They remain in their station only one year and move from Aldershot to London, from London to Windsor, and so on. It would not only be a considerable saving to the Estimates by not moving so frequently, but it would also be a very great saving to the officers and men, who frequently have to find other accommodation unless they are on the marriage strength. It means a considerable amount of travelling about, and no permanent home for anybody. It would be an advantage not only because of the present financial difficulties, but also for the general comfort of the Service if the battalions, instead of moving every year, moved every two years or even every three years.
One other point on the subject of the Brigade of Guards. For many years past they have always recruited, not on the basis of the Line recruits of seven years with the Colours and five with the Reserve, but three with the Colours and nine with the Reserve. That used to work well before the War, but I am not so certain it will work well now, because there is always a battalion of the Brigade of Guards abroad and a battalion sails this week to Khartoum. They are bound to take a certain number of men who have only a short time before they finish their service. It happened before when the Guards were sent to Shanghai and Constantinople, and it will happen now when they are sent to Egypt, that, immediately after they get there, they will have to send back 30 or 40 men time-expired who cannot be continued unless a state of war exists. That is an extravagance that is unnecessary. I would ask the Financial Secretary to inquire whether they could not have some other system of recruiting other than this three years' and nine years' system.
There is one other question I would like to mention, that of the type of man we want to recruit in the Army.
The vocational training schools are doing a great deal of good, but, as the Financial Secretary said, the applicants are not so numerous as they were. It may be for the reason he mentioned, that the fees are too high. It is essential, however, to get the right type of men into the Army, not the type who only go into it because there is nothing else to do. We want the type of men who go into it at 17, 18 or 19, young men who will spend the best years of their life in learning all the qualities that a good soldier requires. It would be a good thing for the Army, Navy and Air Force if a principle were adopted, which has been advocated for many years past both inside and outside this House, that, once a man enters the Government service, his service should be continuous and that, when he goes into the Post Office or anywhere else, his previous service in the Army or Air Force should count towards his pension. Imagine a boy of 18 who says, "I will join the Army, see something of the world, learn what discipline is, and learn something of those qualities which are necessary." When he leaves the Army with a good character to go into the Post Office or any other Department, he should be able to count those seven years he has spent in the Army towards his pension. In a business a man begins in one department and is later transferred to another, but it is all the same employment. Surely, when a man enters the employment of the State it should be counted as one employment, whether it is the Army, Post Office or anything else. It may be said that this is the wrong moment to advocate anything in the way of pensions, but this reform would undoubtedly be a great encouragement to the recruiting authorities in this country, and would get the right type of man into the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I should like to join with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) in his complaint about not getting an opportunity of discussing the Estimates for all the three Services together. We cannot discuss the question of imperial security in watertight compartments. Before we discuss the Estimates of the Services in detail we ought to have an opportunity of discussing the broad aspects of Imperial security. I do not agree with the
hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Captain Hope) in thinking that a Ministry of Defence would result in either greater economy or greater efficiency. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Lime-house in some of his other conclusions. He began by complaining that the Estimates were too high, but they were not as high as the Estimates introduced by his Government last year, for which he voted. He then made a curious complaint that the Financial Secretary today and the First Lord yesterday had confined themselves to explaining the work of their Departments, and had not given us a lecture on peace. It is not their business to do that. He did not rebuke his own Ministers last year when they expounded the work of their own Departments and made very excellent speeches, which showed what one can learn when brought in contact with facts. He did not rebuke them for not giving lectures on peace on that occasion. We regard the Estimates this year as we regarded a good many things we agreed to last Autumn. They can be justified only by reference to the present financial position of the country. The Memorandum of the Secretary of State says:
This reduction of expenditure has only been achieved with the greatest difficulty by resorting to a drastic suspension or retardation of many services which are essential to the well-being and efficiency of the Army.
It is not the first time in our history this has happened. Many times before essential Services have been cut down, and that has generally had to be paid for by the lives of men. A hundred years ago we were doing the same thing and cutting down all those services built up after the experience of the Peninsular War. The consequences did not fall upon the Members of this House who cut them down; the consequences fell on the men who died for want of those services in the Crimea, I am glad to hear it stated that the special reduction cannot be maintained in future years, because the Memorandum goes on to say—
It has only been rendered possible … by measures involving a definite and obvious loss of military efficiency …
That seems to me one of the most serious statements that could be made. After all, nothing could be more wasteful or
expensive than an Army which is not efficient, and the cutting down of training, both of the Regular Army and of the Territorial Army, is an exceedingly serious matter. I hope that next year it may be possible to be more generous, and also that it may be possible to make a beginning with that very desirable reform of feeding the Army, at any rate for a period of each year, on British meat.
The Financial Secretary spoke of the decreasing number of men in recent months who had come forward for vocational 'training prior to their discharge. I think that that is very unfortunate, because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is essential that a man leaving the Army with anything like a good character should be reasonably certain of obtaining employment afterwards. A man who leaves the Army and does not get employment is a very bad advertisement for it. I endorse the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aston (Captain Hope), that if a man who leaves the Fighting Forces and afterwards enters any other branch of the Service of the Crown could count his period of service in the Fighting Forces towards his Civil Service pension, it would be a very real attraction, and I hope that that suggestion may be considered.
With regard to the Officer Cadet Reserve, I should like to ask whether it is intended that these cadets shall receive any periodical training. It seems to me that their knowledge is probably almost entirely theoretical. They probably have never done duty as officers, and, unless they receive a certain amount of training every now and then, I doubt whether their value will be very great. As regards the new scheme for artillery and engineer units of the Territorial Army taking over the coast defences, I believe I am right in saying that the Territorial Army can only be embodied when the Army Reserve has been called out, and the Army Reserve will not be called out until there is a general mobilisation. That means the existence of a state of war. We cannot, however, wait for a declaration of war before manning our coast defences. Our coast defences must be manned at the very beginning of the precautionary period. Therefore, I should like to know whether any powers exist for calling out these artillery and engineer territorial units in advance of a declaration of war; and, if those powers do not exist at
present, I hope that the Government will lose no time in obtaining them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There are one or two criticisms that I should like to make in connection with these Estimates. The hon. Gentleman, in dealing with the mechanisation of the Army, said that the Government were not contemplating, and did not see their way to making, any economy in that direction. Indeed, he used a very significant phrase when he said that an army might as well be abolished if it were nut thoroughly up to date in its mechanical appliances and knowledge. He also spoke about housing, and he might almost have been speaking of the Glasgow slums when he was describing the housing conditions of the British soldier. His description of the Aberdeen barracks and of the huts in various parts of the country would almost have done credit to a novelist writing a book of popular fiction. The contrast is this: The mechanical needs of the Army must be kept up to date; nothing must be saved on them; but, as regards housing the man who is to work this machine, we must let him be housed in filth and squalor and disgraceful conditions. Let the House note the distinction. Not a penny is to be saved on mechanisation; indeed, it is better to have no army than an army which is not effective; but when it comes to the men's lives, let them live in filthy huts that were built almost at the time of the Ark, in barracks built in 1780, in such places as the hon. Gentleman described at Carlisle—rat-infested places. But let us see that this machine to kill someone is beautifully equipped and that the knowledge of it is absolutely par excellence. Let this machine be got ready, which might not only have to be used against a foreign Power, but might be used on a miner in a trade dispute. The machine must be effectively oiled and well cared for; but as regards where the man is to live, let the rats share his housing conditions with him. That is the description which has been given to the House to-day.
I am not very much perturbed about the recognition of the Officers Training Corps. I may be wrong, and, if so, I shall be very glad to be corrected, but, as far as I can gather, the previous Secretary of State for War did not abolish entirely recognition of the Train-
ing Corps. What happened, as far as I can gather, was that until a boy was 16 no grant was to be paid in respect of any equipment or anything in the nature of military training, but that after he had reached 16 the grant was to be paid. I find that on the 10th March, 1931, the right hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary of State for War said:
The way out which I am going to propose is that the system shall be changed. I cannot recommend to the House a system of taking boys of 13 and 14 into the Military Training Corps."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1931; col. 1018, Vol. 249.]

Mr. COOPER: That relates to the Officers Training Corps. I was speaking of the Cadet Corps, recognition of which was withdrawn the year before.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I see; I am very much obliged. I should like to put this point. I am not arguing the pacifist, idealistic case, but the case that is generally argued by business men—the business case. Why should the Government go back to the granting of money for this purpose, seeing that the country is supposed to be so hard up. It is true that it is not proposed to give the grant this year—that recognition is now being given without the grant—but I understand that the grant will be given next year.
As far as I can gather from the memorandum, there is really no effective reduction as compared with the Estimates of last year. The number of men in the Army will remain the same; the savings are effected without in any way affecting the strength of the Army. The establishment, the fighting force of the Army, is the same, but certain services are being reduced. The housing programme is being reduced to some extent; the educational programme is being reduced to some extent; there are to be reductions in the wages of the men. In these ways the savings are made, but from the actual, effective Army point of view it remains at the same strength as last year, I cannot see much criticism of that statement from the Labour point of view, because the hon. Gentleman's predecessor said that the Army was then at the lowest possible point having regard to the safety of the country. He said that the Army could not be made any less without endangering the safety of the country. The present Government say the same as
last Government, the difference being that they have taken, not from the strength of the Army but some £3,500,000 from other sources without affecting the actual strength of the Army itself. The previous Government and this Government agreed that the strength of the Army cannot be any less. I should be ruled out of order if I argued the question of an army versus no army, but, had I been here yesterday, I should have entirely opposed the Navy Estimates, and I shall vote entirely against the Army Estimates, because I think that, from the point of view of Governments, these forces are maintained for the purpose of strengthening Imperialism and capitalism against the mass of the common people, and not for the well-being of democracy or of the working people of this country.
7.30 p.m.
I want to say a word about the hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to recruiting. During the 10 years for which I have been a Member of this House, I have heard, on each Army Estimate, almost a wail that recruits were not coming in. Conservative Members were suggesting that, if unemployment benefit were lowered and the conditions of benefit were made stricter, recruits would be obtained; but, even when recruits were obtained, those recruits, as was pointed out last year, were altogether of a stature and condition of health that did not permit of their becoming good soldiers. Mr. Shaw then brought home to the House with terrible realism the facts about the condition of the recruits who join the Army. He said that, despite the fact that they had lowered the height and lessened the chest measurement, they were still not getting the number of recruits required, and those who were being accepted were not satisfactory from the point of view of health and the physical standard. Here we have the hon. Gentleman saying that that is now ended, and the Army is capable of getting recruits of a physical and a health standard which has not been equalled in the past, and, so good is the response, that they are able to impose a more severe test, because the number is up and the class of recruits is better. I should have liked the hon. Gentleman to give us some reasons for that. The means test seldom affected the very poorest in the community. They
already come within the scope of the means test. But it reduced the population which had a little comfort and a little physical well-being to the level of the very poorest. Until this year, Army recruits were practically confined to the very poor. To-day, for the first time, sections just outside the very poor and, therefore, of a higher physical standard are being forced into the Army. We constantly boast that we have no conscription and that a man is free to say "yes" or "nay." There never was a bigger misreading of facts.
The ordinary working person is forced into the Army as cruelly as ever he was even in the old days of the press gang. The means test forces a better type into the Army. It is not that they want to be there, but they are driven there by hunger. The hon. Gentleman said that for devotion, for leadership, and for character the British soldier is unequalled. In the same breath he says that these men are sent to live in Carlisle barracks, which is infested with rats, or to Malaya, where they will have the company of vermin. I never in my life heard such strange contradictions. The hon. Gentleman's praising of the good qualities of the soldier seemed to me to be overdone. Ex-soldiers go into the Post Office. That is a common form of employment for them. In sobriety, in honesty, in integrity, they are not any better than men who have not been in the Army. Let the hon. Gentleman go over the convictions for dishonesty and the ex-soldier is no worse, but no better, than the civil population.
One of the savings in these Estimates is on reservists' pay. The reservist got a shilling a day, and it was reduced to 9d. Of all the men in the Army, the reservist was the one who was singled out for a 25 per cent. reduction. Even the teachers got less. You entered into a contract with him and you broke it. These men cannot break their contract with the State, but the State can break its contract with them. For seven years they are to be in the Reserve, and they are kept to that contract. The State makes a contract in return to pay them a shilling a day for their services, and breaks the contract. It is different with the teacher. The teacher can throw up his job, and so can the postman. It is true that the sacrifice would be terrible if he did, but
he could do it. The reservist cannot do it. It would be a crime.
I could have understood it if the State had said to the reservist: "We are going to renew our contract. We are going to make the terms different, and, if you like, you can cease to be a reservist." But they say: "You must continue to be a reservist, and we will take 25 per cent. off you." To add to the meanness of it, the 9d. is assessable under the means test. I hear Members talking about Russia keeping her contracts and her obligations. One would have thought their sense of patriotism would lead them to see that the Government kept their contract with the reservist. I should like to ask when the shilling is to be given back. You did not even have the decency to make the reduction 10 per cent. You made it 25 per cent. When he is in the Army he is honourable, capable and clever. The moment he is a reservist, you take 25 per cent. off him. The hon. Gentleman is a defender of the War Office, and it is his duty to defend the men in the Army, and the reservists as well, because any day might see them in the Army. It is not fair to allow the breaking of the contract and the disproportionate cuts in the pay of these men.
I should like to put another point regarding the wages of the soldiers themselves. The district that I represent has a very high recruiting average, and this complaint is constantly put before me by men who send money home to help their parents. If the hon. Gentleman could not restore all the wages, I was wondering if he could not restore the pay of those who have aged parents and make allotments to them. We hear talk about, reducing the Income Tax. If we are going to have an Army, for God's sake, beside making them mechanically sound, let us pay them well. Do not take their pennies and twopennies from them. Who would say that they are too well paid? Watch the fellows in Chelsea barracks. By Wednesday night all their pay has gone. Why take the few remaining pennies from them? They do not drink this money. They are a good type of clean living men in the main. I hope the War Office will restore the wages, and also the pay of the reservists which they have so unfairly taken. If the opportunity is given me, I will repeat
what I have done in the past and vote entirely against the Army, as I would against all the Fighting Services.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) complained that the Estimates were presented to the House very late and that it was impossible to go into them in any detail. There is a body of opinion in the House which believes it is essential that the Estimates should be looked into by a committee before they are presented to the whole House. The Government of which the hon. Member was a Member took no steps in that direction, but, if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to press for some action of that kind being taken, he will have a good deal of support from different parts of the House. The hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) made an excellent speech, with a, great deal of which I am in thorough agreement. He complained, as did the right hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery), of the difficulty in which the House finds itself in considering the Defence Estimates together. The Financial Secretary will have seen that there is sufficient feeling in the House concerning this to justify the Government in attempting to deal with the matter.
May I join with others in congratulating the Financial Secretary on the way in which he presented the Estimates? It is a matter of extreme satisfaction to an old soldier like myself to feel that the interests of the Army are in such able and such sympathetic hands. I also wish to pay a tribute to the way in which the Army has responded to the national call for economy. It has made greater sacrifices than any of the other Services. In common with many other hon. Members, I cannot but regret that these sacrifices were necessary. It is obvious that if they were to be continued the efficiency of the Army would suffer very seriously. We would soon have only the semblance of an Army; we would still be paying very large sums of money for an illusory protection. To go on sacrificing efficiency to ill-considered economy would be as foolish as it, would be extravagant. It was a doleful tale indeed about all these Government buildings that are either collapsing or on the verge of collapsing, and I wondered whether my hon. Friend was not going to conclude
by saying that the Army would no longer march to the tune of "The British Grenadiers," but would adopt the tune of "London Bridge is Falling Down."
In view of the magnificent way in which the Army has responded to the call for economy, it may seem a little ungracious to criticise the overhead charges of the Army, but the fact remains—here I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook—that these charges are too high. When a fine comb was being put through the Estimates, it is a matter of very deep regret to me and to others that the main sacrifices had to be borne by the Fighting Services rather than by the administrative ones. The Army has decreased by 30,000 men since 1914, and, yet the administrative staff has increased. I do not want to criticise particularly the military side of the War Office. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aston (Captain Hope) was, I think, a, little bit excessive in his criticism of the staff. He pointed out that fewer staff officers could often do the work just as well as the members of the staff to-day, but what he forgot was that in a tiny Army like ours it may be necessary to expand enormously, and it is therefore necessary to have rather more staff officers than would be required in another army.
I know the answer is always given that the large increase in the War Office staff since the War is due to the fact that we have now many specialised services which we had not in the past. But that does not apply to the civil side of the War Office. It is hard to understand, for instance, why the permanent Under-Secretary's Department employs 764 persons, costing £309,692 a year, whereas the combined departments of all the Army members of the Army Council employ only 825 persons at a cost of £385,500. Those figures alone show that there is something wrong somewhere. I do not want to weary the House by going into many figures, but it will be found that the War Office employs far too many individuals to administer the finance of so small an Army as ours. Then it seems to me, too, that the political side of the War Office, the Department of the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary, and their staffs, is more than the Army can afford. I hope that some cuts in that direction
may be made. The administrator class in the War Office is also much too heavy in proportion to the Army. I am sure that if the Financial Secretary will look into the matter he will find that there are large numbers of individuals drawing comparatively large salaries and doing the work of girl typists.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that the War Office compared favourably with similar offices in other countries. He was entirely mistaken in that statement. I have collected figures for the purpose of comparison, and I find that the French War Office, which administers an army of about 510,000 individuals, is administered by a War Office comprisong 1,761 persons, soldiers and civilians, male and female, costing £350,000 a year. Those figures compare with our own War Office, with its 2,268 individuals, costing £818,000. I know that it is not possible truly to compare the one with the other. Naturally, in the French War Office, in the lower ranks, there are a good many individuals who are paid less money, but certainly, as far as individuals are concerned, there is no justification, in comparison with other countries, for employing as many people.
8.0 p.m.
There is a further point I would put to the Minister. Is it a fact that the Whitley Councils are habitually consulted before promotions are made among the civilian staff at the War Office? I hope it is not the case, for I can hardly see what justification there could be for such a procedure. There is a further point. The May Economy Committee recommended that subsidies for mechanical transport should cease. They amounted last year to £20,100. This year they are still shown as £8,100. Does that mean that this is a terminal charge, or that the recommendations of the May Committee have not been adopted in their entirety I see under the same heading, on page 136, "Charges for Civilian Subordinates," and that the wages are exactly the same this year as last. The May Committee also made certain recommendations concerning the Ordnance factories, and I venture to ask whether those recommendations have been carried out or not.
I should like to put forward a suggestion which would be applicable to the War Office as it would be applicable to
any Department of State. I have seen it applied with success to one of the biggest railway undertakings in the United States. It is as follows: Let the War Office or any other Department show the capital value of all land and buildings which they own in their Estimates at 5 per cent. The result will work out in this way. Suppose Knightsbridge Barracks were estimated at a value of £1,000,000. If they were shown year after year, as an item of £50,000 in the Estimates, there is no doubt whatever that that item would very soon disappear from the Army Estimates, and the public would be so much better off.
Before sitting down I wish to make a concrete suggestion, and I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend opposite will draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to it when he returns. Would he consider lowering the age of entrants to the Staff College? There are many advantages to be advanced for such a course to be adopted. In the first place it would mean economy. It is obvious that if you had younger officers with more junior rank than at present, the, Staff College itself would cost less money, and it would cost less money to replace those officers while they were being seconded for duty with their regiments. It has the further and extremely important advantage that it would bring the staff officer and the regimental officer much closer together than is the case to-day. The staff officer, having terminated his course fairly early in his career, would return to his regiment and stay there for a longer time and not merely be a temporary spectator, as is often the case to-day. It would broaden the basis of our staff and would also have the very great advantage that in time of emergency we should have far more numerous staff officers available than we have to-day. I would point out, and this will be my last word on the subject, that in all foreign countries the age of entrance to the Staff Colleges is very much lower than it is in our case.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House is of opinion that the expenditure on armaments is a crushing
burden on the peoples of the world and a menace to the continuance of peace, and that in the interests of mankind a speedy and substantial reduction should be made in warlike expenditure.
The moving of this Amendment affords me pleasure owing to the fact that I am an old military man and have also been attached to the Navy. This is a most important question. The world is anxious for disarmament and ready to apply it. We could help to bring about disarmament by appealing to the other nations and by at least giving some lead on the question. I believe that the present situation is due to the feeling of suspicion in the minds of the different countries. If only we would make a move, I am sure that other nations would follow. Let us be the first to cast off the suspicion and let us do all we possibly can at the Disarmament Conference to advise other countries to follow in our footsteps. We have in the past, unfortunately, been very boastful of controlling the world and even the ocean. I remember as a lad singing the words of an old song, "And a whip at the mast have we." Does not this sort of thing cause suspicion in the minds of other countries? Do they not think that we are covetous and desire to make claims throughout the length and breadth of the world?
It will be said that we require this great Army of ours to prevent invasion. Is it meant invasion like that which we had in Sidney Street, Whitechapel, with Peter the Painter, or does it mean an invasion such as that in which we took part in Russia in 1920? I wonder whether the Minister for War at that date knew that it was I who helped to bring that war to a very speedy conclusion by stopping all the ships in London from conveying munitions and lethal weapons in order to crush Kerensky and the rulers of that land. Thousands of tons of munitions were piled up on the quay and could not be delivered. Is this great Army for the purpose of suppressing the workers and preventing them from obtaining their rights? It would be to the advantage, not only of this country, but of every country if disarmament were put into effect. Preparing for war, or even maintaining an army for future offence, is very costly and unproductive. What have we gone through as a result of the last
War? Poverty, debt and misery. We have not gained that land fit for heroes. What we have gained is a knowledge of the cost of war and the terrible suffering of mankind.
I wonder whether the great militarists of this country and even of other countries have ever thought of the expenditure. It has been a revelation to me to-day to hear ex-officers of very high rank talking about finance. We remember the days when they did not study finance at all. When they were in control, they saw to it that they got the money, and they spent it irrespective of where it came from. I will give a few figures to show what the late War cost us. It cost the British Empire alone £10,054,000,000, and out of that Great Britain paid. £7,000,000,000. In France, the cost was £8,126,639,000, in the United States £5,519,594,000, and in Italy £3,502,200,000. What a tragedy when we look upon the unemployed worker to-day! He helped to save this country, but to-day he is absolutely starving, with all this colossal waste going on. Out of every 20s. which was spent, 16s. was borrowed; the remaining 4s. came from the taxpayers, including those poor people who were fighting at the front to save this country. Those who had money and could afford to lend it received interest and jolly good interest too, and they are still receiving interest. What has the taxpayer received? Nothing but abuse. We are left with a debt of £7,000,000,000 as a legacy from the late War. We have to raise each year £350,000,000 for the purpose of defraying these debt charges, and it will take 140 years before we have finished with it at the rate we are going. The taxpayer for this debt service has to pay £1,000,000 a day, £40,000 an hour or nearly £600 a minute. The biggest debt of all that we owe is to those who have gone to the Great Beyond.
I realise that disarmament will have to be done in a gradual way so that the people who are now engaged on armaments and in the Services will be able to earn their livelihood instead of being dumped on to the unemployed market. At the end of the Great War I read with much delight the statement that it was a war to end war. Why, then, are we maintaining such a huge Army? It is all because of the suspicion that rests upon
nations. I remember responsible Ministers saying that we would turn our munition and armament factories into factories for agricultural purposes, and that war material would be used as ploughshares. We are backward in bridges to-day, in bridge repairs, and in house building, on which the people have been deceived. Many of the houses that have been built are not in a sanitary state. All the munition factories and workshops might be utilised for purposes that would be for the good of the people. The Government of that day had delusions and the national Press, with the exception of the "Daily Herald," deluded the people.
Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and other Ministers will be able to help us out of the difficulty. During the discussion on the Agriculture Bill they drew vivid pictures of the farmers looking into the horizon and waiting for the dawn of hope for the benefit of the unemployed workers. I am wondering whether that will materialise. If it does, I hope that they will be able to employ the thousands of people now employed in armament factories, and even the men who will come out of the Army and Navy. It is possible that it may be said in that case that there is not enough land. If so, then let us take the thousands of acres that are lying dormant in this country and that are being used for sport for a few weeks in the year when the owners entertain their friends. I trust that there will be some hope for those who are anxious to come out of the Army and who have been forced into the Service through economic conditions. It would be well if religious bodies would sometimes look after their own business instead of sending busybodies to foreign lands to teach the foreigners, taking with them pots of jam, dumping themselves down and saying: "Give me that land for that pot of jam. If you do not, off goes your head." Then comes along our great War Office and says: "Let us go out and protect these barterers." If we were to keep to our own country we should do more good than we are doing now.
I am anxious for Disarmament particularly because of the sacrifice of human life that results from war. In the last War the British Empire lost 1,098,919 men, young men of a generation that this country sorely misses to-day. Those who have lost sons and other relatives will look
back not so much with pride as with sorrow on the fact. The total killed in the War was 10,873,577. Is not that a great argument for Disarmament? The wounded totalled 20,000,000, the war orphans 9,000,000, the war widows 5,000,000, and the refugees approximately 10,000,000. In addition many people died from famine and other causes. I believe that, approximately, somewhere about 40,000,000 have passed away or were casualties as the result of the War. I followed the War from the 4th August, 1914, when I saw the first batch of men coming along with their bags at the railway termini, being met by ladies who bestowed upon them chocolates, flowers and kisses. Unfortunately, many of those men never returned.
Those who survived that great ordeal are to-day left to the tender mercies of boards of guardians and public assistance committees; and, what is worse still, their wives and little children are left without a helping hand to assist them through life. Those who did return, blinded, with limbs amputated, suffering from neurasthenia, who lie to-day in mental hospitals, no more than Poor Law patients, with tuberculosis and disease in many other forms, when they apply to public assistance committees for assistance have their pensions taken into consideration in reckoning up their means. Do we want another war? An hon. Member has said to-night that we shall want every able-bodied man in the case of another war. I warn this House that you will not get them—I hope you will not. These men who are now seeking employment were told that they would have the preference when they came out of the Army. Why do you not do it now? I have nothing to say against the military heads of our vast Army; they are most efficient for their duties, but they know nothing about the industrial side. What about the bricklayers and plasterers? I thought that the Government were going to build all the houses necessary for the people, but these men when they come out of the Army with a supposed trade in their hands cannot get a day's work.
8.30 p.m.
When I pass the great memorials like the Cenotaph, a cold lump of stone, the only recognition these ex-Service men have got, or go into the various provincial places and see the great memorials on which their names are inscribed in golden letters, and the words, "Your
country needed you," I ask myself, are they needed to-day? No. We look back to that great day of silence, the 11th of November, when you hear bitter sobs, sometimes from very strong men because they have to listen to, and look on the anguish of those whom these men have left behind. Is it not worth while for us to consider disarmament? We told them how brave they were. Let us do the other thing; let us keep them now in decency. I represent a district where we have a memorial not to these men but to 18 little tots, 15 of them of the age of five years, and the others of the ages of six, eight and 12, who were blown to pieces at North Street school. Hundreds more were injured. Is it not worth while, for the sake of little children, to consider disarmament and to prevent war? If some of our friends who live in the big parts of London were to come down and view that memorial, if they were to come to Chinatown and eat chopsuey as an experience, it would bring many of them to approve of disarmament.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am actuated by the same motive which causes most people to support armaments; the motive of fear. I sometimes imagine that other reasons of a more constructive and idealistic character are mingled with that motive, but I am not certain about it, and I may be deceived. The basic and fundamental motive is that of fear; fear not merely for the future of my country but for the whole future of civilisation. We have the best of reasons for such fear. We have been told by the greatest minds of the world, by the greatest statesmen and thinkers, that the next world war, if it ever takes place, will thrust humanity into the dark ages, where all the "glories of our birth and state" will perish. The Leader of the House has warned us what a catastrophe another world war will be. One would think that as the world is faced by such a peril the Governments of the world would be animated by a passionate and concentrated determination to see that disarmament is brought about and humanity saved. I do not see that passionate desire and concentrated determination manifested among the Governments of the world, although a. Disarmament Conference is sitting at
Geneva. I see very little of it in the House to-night. It may be that we shall wake up too late.
The chief nations of Europe, including ourselves, are bound by treaties, by covenants and by moral obligations, to disarm. The Treaty of Versailles has been quoted very often in this House, and the very Clause imposing disarmament upon Germany stated that disarmament was imposed upon Germany not because of any particular sin or iniquity on her part, but:
in order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow.
When these terms were presented to the representatives of the German Government the latter replied as follows:
Germany is prepared to agree to the basic idea of the Army, Navy and Air regulations. … provided that this is a beginning of a general reduction of armaments.
To that the Allied Powers gave the famous reply which has been quoted so often and is being quoted to-day in Germany:
The Allied and associated Powers wish to make it clear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not made solely with the object of rendering it impossible to resume her policy of military aggression. They are also the first step towards the reduction and limitation of armaments which they seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war, and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote.
That is the promise which was made to Germany. Germany has carried out those conditions. She has disarmed. There is no doubt about that. She now comes to Geneva and tells us that we must carry out the conditions also. She asks us to fallow the example which we have imposed upon her. If this country and her late Allies in the War do not follow that example and disarm as Germany did, then it is absolutely certain that Germany is going to insist upon liberty to re-arm. That is the position which confronts us to-day. That is the demand which Germany is making at Geneva. If these conditions are not fulfilled on both sides, she must have liberty to re-arm and the result must be to increase the burden of armaments and the menace and danger of war.
Since the War the problem of Disarmament has been approached by two paths. There is first the political method which aims at bringing about a condition of pooled security in which the nations would disarm. Secondly there is the direct approach, without any political clauses or agreements, by means of bargaining between one nation and another that certain categories of arms should be reduced or even abolished. The political method of bringing about a condition in which armaments would be reduced, because security would be maintained, started with the famous Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which reads as follows:
The members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council. … shall"—
not "may"—
formulate plans for such a reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments.
The League of Nations immediately afterwards attempted to formulate such a plan. They worked very hard, but they found many obstacles both of a technical and a political nature. Arguments of this sort were put up against them—that if all the nations did disarm, the highly industrialised nations would be in a superior position to the agricultural nations, because they would have factories in which they could turn out chemicals and poison gas, and also fleets of motor lorries which could easily be used for war purposes, whereas the agricultural undeveloped countries would be placed at a disadvantage in these respects if war broke out. It was also found that no nation would disarm without some knowledge that they would be protected in case of war by the others. In all these arguments and discussions, no progress was made, a complete deadlock was reached. It was only when the problem of disarmament was linked up with that of security that any progress was made. That was done nearly 10 years ago. In September, 1922, four Resolutions were adopted by the Temporary Mixed Commission of the League of Nations and I have always considered that those four Resolutions are very illuminating and important. I do not know if they have been quoted in the House before, but they represent the
point at which the nations had arrived at that time, and for that reason I would like to recall them to hon. Members.
The first Resolution was that no scheme for the reduction of armaments could ever be successful, unless it was general. The second was that in the present state of the world the majority of Governments would be unable to accept responsibility for a serious reduction of armaments unless they received in exchange a satisfactory guarantee for the safety of their countries. The third was that such guarantee could be found in a general defensive agreement between all the countries concerned binding them to, provide immediate and effective assistance in accordance with a prearranged plan in the event of one being attacked. The fourth Resolution stated:
It is understood that the whole of the above Resolutions are conditional on a reduction of armaments being carried out on the lines laid down beforehand, and on the provision of effective machinery to ensure the realisation and maintenance of such a reduction.
As a result of those Resolutions several schemes were drawn up, and in the end discussion on the Resolutions ended in the famous Protocol of Geneva. Without going into that Protocol in detail, I may remind hon. Members that it declared, first, that all war between one nation and another was an international crime, and, secondly, that all disputes between nations would have to be settled by arbitration. It set up machinery for that purpose. Thirdly, it declared that if a nation which agreed to arbitration did not act in a military way, then, if the other nation, having refused either arbitration or the results of arbitration, proceeded to attack, that other nation should be restrained, and the first nation, which had accepted arbitration, should be entitled to the protection of the other members of the community of States. Upon that basis, it was said, security would be attained and a measure of disarmament brought about. It was further stipulated that unless disarmament was brought about, the whole thing should fall to the ground.
I have a great admiration for the character of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), but I have always regretted that he rejected that Protocol in such an uncompromising manner. It
may have had its weaknesses; it may have been capable of amendment in various ways, but I think it was a great misfortune that it should have been turned down and that every attempt made since to revive the principles of the Protocol at Geneva, and many have been made, should have been turned down in the same way by the Government of this country. The result was twofold. First of all, it brought about a separation between the policies of France and ourselves, and if we could have had an agreed policy on disarmament with France, it would have been a great thing for Europe. Secondly, it took the heart out of the constructive activities of the League of Nations. That has been shown in many ways. It reduced the League to the position of weakness which we have seen during the last few months.
In the last few years the attempt has been made by the League to attack Disarmament in a direct way—that is to say, without referring to questions of arbitration or political issues, to see whether, by negotiation, arms could not be reduced—and after five years' discussion a draft Convention has been drawn up and is now being considered at Geneva. It is a very complicated document, in which all the various arms of the Services, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, are divided up, as a result of negotiations, into different categories, but not a single figure has yet, of course, been put into those categories. That is the task of the Conference at Geneva. It is for the nations themselves to decide how many heavy guns, how many moderate-sized guns, what amount of light artillery, cavalry, tanks, and so on shall be put into the different categories; and I hope that very low figures will be voted for by our Government. Signor Mussolini has stated that Italy is willing to reduce her Army even to 10,000 rifles, provided no other nation has a larger force. That is a statement which cannot be swept aside as a mere phrase. Signor Mussolini is a great European statesman, and I suggest that it might be a gesture of some value if we stated that we would do the same and stand with Italy by reducing our Army also to 10,000 rifles, provided no other nation exceeded that force.
The Amendment which we are moving states that:
the expenditure on armaments is a crushing burden on the peoples of the world and a menace to the continuance of peace.
I need not argue that. I need only say that at present the nations of Europe are spending £800,000,000 a year on armaments. This country is at present, spending £200 a minute on armaments. Since I have been addressing this House, we have spent £4,000 on armaments; a sum of £4,000 has gone up on the taximeter since I have been speaking here. As to its being a menace, I do not intend to weary the House by describing what science has said as to the nature of a future war, though I have plenty of quotations which I could use. I do not intend to do so, but everybody knows that if another war took place, in one night half the population of London might be suffocated, and it would give very little consolation to the survivors if they knew that a few hours later the population of another capital had been devastated and destroyed in a similar way.
The Foreign Secretary made a statement at Geneva, in which he said that a high level of armaments was no substitute for security. I will read the statement, because it is a very valuable one. He said:
The proposition that the peace of the world is to be secured by preparing for war is no longer believed by anybody"—
I think he was rather optimistic there, and forgot to take into account some of the Members of this House. He went on:
for recent history manifestly disproves it. A high level of armaments is no substitute for security. At best, it only creates the illusion of security in one quarter while at the same time aggravating the sense of insecurity in another.
I think that is a very wise statement from the Foreign Secretary. After all, armaments cannot be a security unless you have a larger army than anybody else, and your rival says the same thing; he wants a larger army than yours. As it is impossible for two peoples to have larger armies than each other, it means a race in armaments, and that in the end means war. Surely it is obvious, if we wish to secure peace, that Europe must follow the example given to us by America and Canada. At the beginning
of last century the frontier between America and Canada was fortified, and there were warships on the great Lakes, and large warships too, but to-day along those 3,000 miles of frontier there is not a ship nor a gun. What America and Canada did in 1817 Europe ought to be able to do in 1932. If this country would only give a lead to Europe, I believe we should get a great response from the democracies of the world, and that they would join with us in building up and safeguarding our civilisation from this menace of war and destruction. It would be said again as it has been said of old, that
England saved herself by her exertions and Europe by her example.
After all, if this civilisation perishes in war, it will not be the first civilisation that has done that. The great and wonderful civilisation of Athens, of the time of Pericles, was destroyed by war. That reminds me that there survived from that civilisation that perfect building, the Parthenon, which not only survived Athens, but Rome, and the Goths, and the Vandals. It even survived the early Christians, who were such great destroyers of pagan beauty, but it did not survive modern warfare. About 300 years ago there was a war between Turkey and the Venetian Republic, and the Turkish commander thought it would be a good thing to store gunpowder in the Parthenon, to use it for his ammunition. The Venetian commander thought it would be an equally good thing to bombard the Parthenon with red-hot cannon balls, with the result that it was bombarded, and the powder exploded and blew up that wonderful structure.
Is not that typical of our civilisation? We build up, through toil, and sacrifice, and effort, a great civilisation; we adorn it with all the flowers of poetry, philosophy, and art; and then we fill up the whole thing with high explosives. When some little incident occurs, like a shot at Sarajevo, or something at Shanghai, or an incident on the Italian-French frontier, the ammunition explodes, civilisation is smashed up, and all that is left is the mere memory. I feel that this ancient assembly, this High Court of Parliament, should send a call to the world to-day to disarm, in order that humanity shall not perish from the earth.

Mr. PIKE: The hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. D. Adams) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), in presenting this Amendment, have overlooked the fact that, if the whole world had given to-us some evidence that their ideals with regard to disarmament were running in the same channels as ours have proved to have been running for a considerable time, everyone on this side of the House would have been in wholehearted agreement. One has to decide whether it is in the interests of the nation to disarm or to arm for that point of safety necessary to the economic wellbeing of the country and its people. For the last 10 or 12 years we have been pursuing a policy of disarmament which I am convinced will prove ere long to be a policy running extremely near the danger line. So far I am joined by the late Minister for War, Mr. Tom Shaw, who, in speaking on the Army Estimates a year ago, made this statement on the subject of disarmament:
If anyone will examine closely what has been done in this country during the last 10 or 11 years in the shape of reductions in the Army, and compare it with the position in other countries, there can be no doubt that they must conclude that the policy of unilateral disarmament has not achieved its object. It is impossible to examine the figures and, looking facts in the face, to conclude that any foreign country has followed the example set by this country. I do not want to make invidious distinctions, but I ask anybody who takes an interest in the question of disarmament to note carefully the condition of affairs as shown in the League of Nations books on the subject, and then I think there can be no question at all that the enormous reductions which have obtained in this country have not been reproduced in other countries. Disarmament in this country, instead of being a lead to foreign nations, has not led to that desirable result. Therefore, it is impossible in the circumstances for me to recommend to the Government any further unilateral disarmament because the figures are against it, experience is against it, and, in my opinion, the prospects of the future are against it."—OFFIOIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1931; cols. 1019–20, Vol. 249.]
What was true last year is more than ever true to-day. So far as we have disarmed, and so far as an extension of disarmament on our part is concerned, we shall be pursuing, if we adopt the advice of hon. Gentlemen opposite, a very risky and uneconomical course. It has been said that we should appeal to other nations. The hon. Member for South Poplar said that if we appealed to other
nations they would listen to our appeal, and then, if we gave them a further lead, they would follow us. Facts prove the opposite. Nobody has appealed more than the British nation, not only through its administrators and its legislature, and through successive Foreign Secretaries, but through, its great-hearted people, for world-wide disarmament and peace. In return, we are shown conclusively that in practically every instance, while we are disarming to danger point, the nations of the world are increasing their armaments to a much more dangerous point—dangerous again to our economic security.
9.0 p.m.
The last War, we are told, cost £10,000,000,000, and 5,000,000 British sons were killed and maimed. I ask whether my hon. Friends opposite who put this Amendment before the House really believe that that huge debt accumulated and that huge loss of life resulted through armaments or the lack of armaments. Had this country taken more of the advice of its military leaders prior to 1914, and had prepared itself against the coming catastrophe, which even school children were taught to see, we would not have been compelled to enter that long and expensive struggle. It was really our lack of armaments and lack of defensive forces that compelled us ultimately to continue in the War as long as we did and to spend so much in life and money. I do not want to see that repeated. There is more prospect, if we continue the policy of bleeding ourselves of the forces necessary for our defence and for even our economic defence, of a further catastrophe like 1914 to 1918 than there is if we give ourselves what we are entitled to have, fair economic defensive forces.
There is another side to the argument for disarmament. There is the economic and industrial side for a large community of workers. I come from a city where many thousands of men have for years been employed in the production of armaments. It is the city of Sheffield, of which, during the last Government, the First Lord of the Admiralty was a representative. The city has depended to a large degree in the past on their part in armament production. To-day over 80,000 men are divorced from the means of existence in that city. I do not want to see them simply producing guns or the material of war; I want to see them
producing material for ordinary economic and domestic consumption. I do not want to see them, however, by a policy of unjustified disarmament, thrown on to the streets into ale ranks of the unemployed without any prospect of alternative employment. If hon. Gentlemen opposite can give us an alternative and show us that, if we continue disarmament and close down our armament works, these works will be reorganised and re-equipped for the production of domestic articles, we shall be with them in furthering their claim for peace and disarmament. So long as they lack that alternative programme we are entitled to ask the Labour party, in view of their broken promises, what proposals they have for providing industrial occupation for those men whom they have thrown upon the streets owing to unjust disarmament?
At the last election, out of the 42,000 electors in my own division of Attercliffe, 21,500 were unemployed. Of this number fully 50 per cent. had, in the past, been employed normally in the production of armaments, and I am honestly convinced in my own mind that they really thought that after this election the Government would not proceed with the foolish policy of the past 11 or 12 years of disarming beyond our just rights. They hoped to find a little more employment in those armament works than had been available in the past three or four years. I ask the Government, before they go any further in the matter of disarmament, to take note of the policies being pursued by other countries in this respect. We were told by the hon. Member for South Poplar that the Government could, if they chose, afford to scrap the whole of our armed forces. Previously the late Financial Secretary to the War Office in the last Government had said that the Government must prevent the closing down of the Pimlico Clothing Factory. He wanted it maintained for the purpose of providing military and naval dress uniforms—at least to provide the clothing for the Members of His Majesty's Forces. I hope he does not expect the War Office to maintain the Pimlico factory if there is no army to be clothed. Are those who are now pleading for the continuance of the Pimlico factory prepared to say,
"If you will promise complete disarmament to-morrow morning, we will promise that we will never mention the Pimlico factory again"? I am convinced that from the point of view of propaganda the closing down of the Pimlico factory is far more valuable to the Labour party than the question of whether we should disarm completely or not.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe, after quoting a document from the League of Nations, spoke upon the question of Disarmament to a point consistent with national safety. What is disarmament to a point consistent with national safety? Let us take our view. We think that we need sufficient forces to protect our trade routes throughout the world. But what is the American view of disarmament to a point consistent with national safety, or the point of view of Italy, or France, or Germany? I should imagine they all have a different point of view. Must we allow them all to enjoy disarmament according to their own point of view, or is the question of disarmament to a point consistent with national safety to be decided by some outside body which may or may not be ignorant of our economic requirements? It is riding a very bare horse to suggest that this policy is a practicable one or that it would be acceptable to the majority of the nations of the world.
Then the question of a future war was raised. In my humble opinion, those who talk of the horrors likely to be experienced in a future war owing to the development of scientific weapons do most to create a suspicion of war. If they paid more regard to the cold common sense of the peoples of the world they would know that the average person in this country and in other countries is not a warlike person but is just as anxius for peace as the most ardent member of the League of Nations. To preach continually of the horrors of war creates an idea in the minds of many people that there is somebody in existence who is trying to force another war. Such notions are misleading, and very mischievous in their effect upon the mentality of a section of the people, either large or small, in this or any other country.
Next it was said that if another war came we should not get the men. That
was said by the hon. and affable Member for South Poplar. What the Financial Secretary told us was that last year there were so many recruits for the Army that a record number bad to be turned away. If there were a danger of war the spirit and the desire for justice which are inherent in every Britisher would answer the foolish submissions of the hon. Member for South Poplar. I think the rising generation are just as keen and as anxious for the peace of the world as we are, but I am sure, on the other hand, that if the occasion arose they would be just as anxious to serve their country in its hour of need as those who have gone before. It was also suggested by the same hon. Member that our maimed ex-service men are left in ex-service men's hospitals as nothing more than Poor Law inmates. That is not fair. That is not a true suggestion. I think I can safely say that the disabled ex-service man in an ex-service men's hospital in this country is treated better than any other disabled ex-service man in any other part of the world. Everything is done for his personal comfort, and every effort is put forth with the object of restoring him to permanent health and strength. If is suggestions such as those which create an atmosphere of real suspicion in the minds of the people.
The last point with which I wish to deal was raised by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who said on the subject of disarmament that there was no question of security unless a nation possessed the largest army and the largest navy. If we are to look at it from that angle, that is the last argument which the hon. Member should have submitted in the interests of disarmament. I am sure that the country possessing the largest navy or the largest army in the world to-day is not regarded as the country likely to develop aggressive methods. The world to-day regards the question of world peace from an entirely different standpoint from that which prevailed in pre-war days, and I am convinced that instead of large armies and large navies—which, if we like can be called economic services for the purposes for which they are needed—creating a spirit of war they are creating that spirit of security which this nation needs. We are afraid that if the policy of this country on disarmament is carried much
further we shall be destroying what we, an island among the nations of the world, most need, and that is the security of the livelihood and economic position of the people of this country and of the Empire.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I have always maintained that the best qualification for representing Sheffield is to be a tenacious fighter for the making of armaments, and there is nobody better qualified for that job than the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike). Sir John Tudor Walters complained in the past that Sheffield was not getting its fair share of armament work, and he one said at a public meeting in Sheffield:
When he secured from the Government a large order for Sheffield he was not so simple as to go shouting about it in the House of Commons. If you shout you cannot do much. If you want to accomplish things, you have to go to work quietly and carefully. It is not for me to shout about orders. It is for me to go to the War Office and the Admiralty and get them.

Mr. PIKE: I hope the hon. Member is not imputing those motives to me.

Mr. MACDONALD: No, I was only stating what are the qualifications for a good Member for Sheffield. I would suggest that the hon. Member for Attercliffe should take a leaf out of the book of Sir John Tudor Walters who, after being rejected at Sheffield, went to Falmouth, where he found things a little more pleasant. We have been told that we are opposed to unilateral disarmament, hut we have never stood for unilateral disarmament. We know that Great Britain has made a tremendous contribution to the cause of disarmament; in fact, no country in the world has made a bigger contribution in that direction, and it should not be, suggested that because we are supporting an Amendment of this kind, we lack a patriotic spirit. We declare in the Amendment:
That this House is of opinion that the expenditure on armaments is a crushing burden on the peoples of the world.
Is it denied that an expenditure of £900,000,000 a year on armaments is a crushing burden? Does anyone suggest that this country is not at the present moment carrying a crushing burden in regard to our armaments? The Amendment goes on:
and a menace to the continuance of peace, and that, in the interests of mankind, a
speedy and substantial reduction should be made in warlike expenditure.
I enjoyed very much the speech of the Financial Secretary, and I also enjoyed the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday, although I regret a total abstinence in both those speeches of any reference at all to Disarmament. I think that these Estimates show a very fair reduction amounting to about 10 per cent. My only complaint is that these reductions are surrounded by fears and warnings that the reductions can be only of a temporary nature, and that this expenditure will have to be incurred again at some later period. The question I wish to ask is, whether Great Britain is doing everything she possibly can in the cause of Disarmament? I would suggest that one thing this House might very well do would be to carry this Amendment, and send a message to Geneva showing exactly where we stand.
We should not become too self-satisfied. This is not the time to pat ourselves on the back. It is our duty to see if there is something more we can do in the cause of Disarmament. I think there is. Reference has been made to the League of Nations, and one important question which is now being considered by the League is whether something more cannot be done with regard to the manufacture of armaments. I hope we shall have some statement on that point from the Government. I think there should be some pronouncement from the Government in relation to the Covenant, and the provision relating to the private manufacture of war materials and implements of war. I remember reading a Debate just prior to the War where this point was raised by the present Lord Privy Seal, and if anyone can drive a point home it is Viscount Snowden, more especially in his wiser and better days before the War. Viscount Snowden, speaking in the House of Commons on 18th March, 1914, on the Navy Estimates said:
What are the obstacles in the way of a substantial reduction of this expenditure? Why is it mounting up? The Governments —not only our own Government, but the Governments of all the European nations—profess to deplore it. The only speech I have heard upon the question by a responsible Minister in recent years who did not deplore it, and who will not make an appeal for a better understanding between the nations of Europe was 'the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday…What, in
spite of these conditions is the obstacle in the way of a better understanding? Lord Welby, who has held the highest and most responsible position as a permanent civil servant in this country, who was at the head of the Treasury, who is a man of world-wide reputation in matters of financial knowledge and a man of sterling probity, was speaking on this question a few weeks ago and he said:
'We are in the hands of an organisation of crooks. They are politicians, generals, manufacturers of armaments and journalists. All of them are anxious for unlimited expenditure, and go on inventing scares to terrify the public and to terrify Ministers of the Crown.'
As long as the making of armaments is in the hands of private manufacturers, it will be impossible to control their manufacture. On these benches we think that the making of implements of war is a job that ought to be taken over by the Government of the nation, and, once this is done, we shall be free from the danger of corruption. On this subject Viscount Snowden said on the same occasion:
It would be impossible to throw a stone on the benches opposite without hitting a Member who is a shareholder in one or other of these firms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1914; cols. 2134–40, Vol. 59.]

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: When was that statement made?

Mr. MACDONALD: It was made on lath March, 1914. The question of whether the manufacture of armaments should be left in the hands of private manufacturers is a serious matter. We feel that the Government of the day should consider taking it over. It is clear that this job must sooner or later be taken away Iron) the private firms, for, if it is left in their hands, it endangers peace. There is no one in this House who does not desire disarmament and all that we ask hon. Members to do is to say so. To vote against this Amendment means that we do not desire disarmament, and no one who thinks disarmament is a human necessity can vote against it. If lion. Members vote against it, they will tie the hands of the Foreign Secretary behind his back at Geneva. He will be asked, "Why do you come here and advocate drastic reductions in armaments on behalf of your country when your country has rejected a proposal of the character of that put forward by the Labour party? "No, we must carry this Amendment to-night.
I want to refer once more to the speech made by Viscount Snowden in his palmier days. It was a very interesting speech, and in his peroration—and Viscount Snowden could perorate very well—he said:
The peoples of the world have in the past trusted in Kings, nobles and plutocrats and each of them has failed. It is now for the people to trust themselves. The workers of the world have no animosities; they have no jealousies; they have no diverse interests. All they want is freedom to work and the right to enjoy the fruits of their labours. I say again, we echo, in the same sentiments as our comrades in the French Parliament and the German Reichstag, our determination to do what we can to change national opinion and national ideas upon this question, and I do not despair of our doing so. The dawn comes slow—how slow !—but it does come, and I believe that out of the chaos and strife that now prevail, there are arising brighter and better times when nation will no more lift up its hand against nation, and when all the peoples of the earth will realise that of all the great, priceless blessings of humanity, the greatest of all is peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1914; cols. 2147–8, Vol. 59.]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: I have given a promise to be brief, and therefore I cannot follow hon. Members as closely as I should like, not even the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. D. Adams), with whose passionate desire for peace I agree so much that I feel there must be between him and me some avuncular relationship. Let me be very frank and say that I heard with some little misgiving the remarks made by hon. and right hon. Members of the Government in presenting the Estimates yesterday and to-day, when they said they regretted they were the smallest Estimates that had ever been before this House. I cannot reconcile some of the observations made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) with any possibility of every-sided disarmament. Let me quote one sentence from the speech he delivered yesterday:
We want our policy to he one of cooperation with the rest of the world, but we want to be independent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1932; col. 1515, Vol. 262.]
I should like some assurance from the Government that if a situation arises as favourable as that which obtained at the time of the Washington Conference in 1922, that would be grasped with both hands by them, because I do feel that the skirts of such an opportunity
should be grasped and held firmly if that situation arises again. I do entreat the Government not to be trapped into resisting this Amendment too strongly tonight, and for this reason, that it is truly a most self-evident proposition. All the statements contained in it surely cannot be objected to either by Liberals, Conservatives or Socialists. You might almost as well be invited to vote against the Book of Proverbs. The Amendment is, in fact, a series of truisms, but it is none the worse for that, because when you deal with the problem of disarmament you automatically repeat platitudes, since so much has been said on this subject ever since the Armistice in 1918. The Amendment says that armaments are "a crushing burden." Of course they are. It is a crushing burden to this country to have to pay £100,000,000 a year in armaments. I am not particularly elated with the reflection that 25s. out of every £10 of Income Tax I have to pay is going to be devoted towards something which may be used to destroy wealth and life, or to be used to prevent that destruction by some foreign instrument.
Then it is said that armaments are a menace to peace. That, also, is a perfectly self-evident proposition. The vicious circle of armaments is extraordinarily small in circumference. You start with fear abroad and go on to armaments abroad; then you get fear at home, followed by armaments at home, and the result is fear abroad, and so you are ready to start again with the same cycle. That is almost too self-evident to require comment. I always imagined that the charge of a large army was the gravamen of the case against Germany. There is no possible security in large armaments. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) reminded me of a man sitting on a column of gunpowder and maintaining that he was entirely safe. Of course he is, until some fool comes along and throws a match at the foot of that column. If you reduce armaments by 25 per cent., you only reduce that column of gunpowder from 100 feet to 75 feet, and the explosion would be nearly as bad when it inevitably comes through some silly adventurous foreign Machiavellian politician. It is equally self-evident when it is said that another war will most certainly destroy civilisation
as we know it. It is equally true that all the criteria and the condition of mind in every party have absolutely changed since 1914, because war has now become too terrific and too terrible to contemplate. It is true that civilisation as we know it is a blend of contradictions and injustices, but, in my humble submission, it is a far better condition than that reversion to primaeval savagery which we should inevitably have if another war occurred.
There is one point which has not been mentioned, but which is extremely relevant to this matter, and that is the attitude of the electorate. On this most important matter the House should be the mirror of the public and the echo of the popular will, as we are assumed to live under a democratic form of government. I think every hon. Member will agree that, with absolutely negligible exceptions, if you want to raise a storm of applause you should plead the cause of disarmament before any mixed audience in any constituency. This issue was rather obscured in the last General Election, but in my obscure way I tried to bring it forward in my own fight. I extremely regret the absence from this House to-night of the spiritual brother of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, the Prime Minister, because he has withstood an absolute storm of obloquy in the cause of peace. It is never charged against him that he acted with any insincerity during the War. I think his policy then was mistaken, but it is surely true to say that there is not alive anywhere in the world to-day a truer friend of the cause of peace.
I conclude, in keeping with my promise to be brief, with the observation that I belong, by a hair's breadth only, to the post-War generation, and, therefore, perhaps I may be said to have some personal interest in a Motion of this kind. I want to see this question taken right out of the realm of party politics, for this desire for disarmament and the cause of peace at large is not the perquisite of any single party. As I have said, I and those of my own generation escaped service in the last War by a hair's breadth, but I invite the House to remember that I and my contemporaries will have to live two de-
cades before we exceed the military age. The hon. Member for South Poplar said that, if another military crisis occurred, the men would not go. I wish he were here now, because I would say to him," O, sancta simplicitas," of which a somewhat free translation is, "My poor fish!" Of course they would go; they go every time, and that is the danger. We have to obviate this crisis and get rid of it by every means in our power. It is because I believe that disarmament is one of the most compelling causes which would induce a permanent condition of peace that I ask His Majesty's Government, with all the seriousness at my command, to do whatever they can whenever any opportunity arises to relieve those of my own day and generation from the terror that flyeth by night, and the arrow that destroyeth in the noon-day.

Mr. PARKINSON: In rising to support this Motion, I cannot but think of the varied expressions of opinion that we have heard on this subject to-night. The Labour party do not demand something that is outrageous to the sense of the whole community, but we believe that there should be a reduction of armaments as far as is really possible, in order that we may give a lead to the world and let it be seen that we are genuine and sanguine in our anticipations. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), who has given the terms of the Covenant and has quoted the Resolutions of Agreement between the nations, has said all that it is necessary to say on that point at the moment, and the statement of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) has also been dealt with. He said, however, that the country was very near the danger line owing to the reductions that had been made. It is questionable whether he is likely to know where the danger line is or not, because our statesmen, and the statesmen of other countries, even after very long consideration, have not been able to find out exactly where the danger line is. The hon. Member said that, while we have been getting so near the danger line, other nations have been increasing their armaments, but the most cruel part of the business was his suggestion that we ought to keep on spending money on armaments irrespective of the economic position of the country.

Mr. PIKE: I think that the hon. Gentleman has rather misinterpreted what I
said. I said that we should guard the economic interests of the country before we completely abandoned the spending of money on armaments.

Mr. PARKINSON: I should be very sorry to misinterpret the hon. Member's suggestion, and if I have made a mistake I apologise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe said, the fact that it was laid down in the Treaty of Versailles that Germany was compelled to disarm was the starting point for every nation, and the reply of M. Clemenceau, writing in June, 1919, was as follows:
The Allied and Associated Powers wish to make clear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not made solely with the object of rendering it impossible to resume her policy of military aggression. They are also the first step towards the reduction and limitation of armaments, which they seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war, and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote.
We are under the same obligation; the British delegates have their obligations to fulfil there. This afternoon the Financial Secretary, in his statement with respect to present reductions, said that the Estimates for this year cannot be taken as a standard for future years. I do not know exactly what he meant by that—whether he meant that we are going to stabilise the figure at something like its present amount, or whether we shall be able to increase it in future years. If, however, he is looking forward to an increase in the Estimates in the coming years, I think he is making a very great miscalculation, because, in my opinion, it will not be necessary in future years to increase the Estimates in order to maintain the present standard.
As regards the present situation or standard in armaments, we have to ask ourselves one or two questions. In the first place, are we really weaker in the field with a slightly reduced number? As a matter of fact, our numbers are only 100 less this year than last year, so that practically speaking there is no reduction in numbers at all. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, although our numbers may be less, our striking power is greater. It is not now man-power so much that makes up the equipment of an army, as the position in regard to machines. Mechanisation is bound to make a considerable difference in the
power of any army in the field. We may have less men, but we lead the world in tank construction and probably in many other forms of mechanism, and possibly in chemical warfare. Some time ago it was stated in the "Times" that Great Britain, deficient in numbers as compared with other Powers, had gone far ahead of them in efficiency. I take it that that does not mean that we have gone ahead of them as regards the mechanism of the Army only, but that it also includes chemical warfare; and that would mean, even if the personnel is reduced in number, the strength of the Army is not really reduced, as the Army, fortified by all the new Services, will be stronger in future than ever before.
The world economic crisis compels us, to take into consideration the question of expenditure, particularly at the present time and in the circumstances in which we are placed at the moment, I think a halt ought to be made. We must look at the question from the point of view of the great increase that has taken place since the pre-War period. I know that much will be said with respect to the difference in the purchasing power of money pre-War as compared with the present time, but our expenditure in 1913 was £80,000,000, while last year it was, I think, £115,000,000. Can we continue spending money to that extent, or will the economic position of the country demand that less money shall be spent 7 Many other nations besides our own are spending liberally on this kind of thing, but there is no doubt that the economic circumstances of the world at the moment justify a demand for a reduction of expenditure in every country, particularly in our own. The expenditure of the United States has risen in 10 years from £92,000,000 to £175,000,000. The nations of Europe are spending annually £520,000,000 on armaments. The world expenditure is £900,000,000.
What is the effect of this colossal expenditure, and is it possible for it to continue Is it not money spent in a direction which is not giving a sufficient return? Does it not denote that we are sooner or later to enter into a great war, whether we like it or not? You do not build up armaments against a friendly nation. You do it because you believe there is going to be trouble between some other nation and yourself. If you think
there is going to be trouble, who is our enemy, and whom are we building against, because it will be asked in some other Parliament who is their enemy and whom are they building against. In view of the fact that there is a Disarmament Conference going on, should not there be a better feeling among nations, and should not the statesmen of all nations understand each other better? Would it not be better for them to bake their tongues out of their cheeks and to speak more plainly to each other? Sir Edward Grey gave the answer with respect to armaments before the last War:
The enormous growth of armaments in Europe; the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them—it was these that made war inevitable.
May I bring before the notice of the House the expenditure in other countries, because there is such a similarity in the amounts, according to population, that it makes it possible to believe that there is some kind of agreement as to the extent of the expenditure that shall take place in foreign countries. America, with a population of 123,000,000, is spending £149,000,000 per annum. For the defence of 100,000,000 Frenchmen, including colonies, France is spending £110,000,000 annually. To safeguard 43,000,000 Italian people costs £63,000,000. In Japan, to safeguard their population of 86,000,000, they are spending £53,000,000 annually. What are we doing? The British Empire, excluding the Dominions and India, comprises a population of 110,000,000, and we are spending over £100,000,000 in their defence. The home country expends between £95,000,000 and £100,000,000 a year.

Mr. LEWIS: Why does the hon. Member exclude our Colonies and include the French colonies?

Mr. PARKINSON: I suppose they are separately treated.

Mr. LEWIS: I understood that the hon. Gentleman added the population of the French colonies to the population of France, whereas in this Empire he specifically excluded them.

Mr. PARKINSON: Every country must be treated on its own basis.

Mr. PIKE: If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question, can he say
what exactly is our share of the armament costs of the main portion of the Empire?

Mr. PARKINSON: If the hon. Member makes inquiries of the War Office he will probably get that information. We must look at the financial aspect a little further. The British National Debt is £7,500,000,000. This lays a burden on our population of not less than £165 per head. This shows that we are spending more money than we really ought to do. I know the House is very sorry at the passing of M. Briand, becaues I believe he was one of the greatest friends of peace the world had. He certainly was the greatest Frenchman in the line of peace. I am sure that to a large extent he sacrificed himself in the interests of peace in working for his country and for the world in general. Unfortunately, in every country we have two spirits—the war spirit and the peace spirit. One of the two must yield to the other sooner or later, and it is much better that the peace movement should come out on top, because it offers a nation life while the war spirit means death and the passing of nations. Whether it will be possible for the people throughout the world to overcome the opposition that it has been receiving remains to be seen, but let us all make the greatest possible efforts on behalf of peace, because that way salvation lies.
The economic disorganisation which faces the world at present is the direct consequence of the Great War. Everything that has been brought about in the way of a downward grade in the last 10 years has really been a consequence of the War, and, if another war of anything like the same magnitude occurred, it would not only threaten nations but it would threaten the stability of society and it would threaten civilisation itself. The hon. Member for Attercliffe said we made too much of that, and he tried to make it appear that the city that he represents suffered more than any other. I would ask him to look at the position of the mining community, because their commodity could not be done without any more than could the commodities manufactured at Sheffield. While he can point to an unemployed list of 50,000, in our industry we have an unemployed list of something like 350,000. Germany was compelled to remain unarmed in order to
render possible the limitation of armaments by all nations. They have kept true to -flat. Whether it will be possible to keep them in the position they are in now unless other countries disarm to a greater extent remains to be seen. The Kellogg Pact and the Protocol condemn resort to war and express a determination to settle international disputes by pacific means. Ever since the War I have lived in the hope that the League of Nations would become the one determining instrument of war throughout the world.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) dealt with the question of the manufacture of armaments. This to me is one of the most crucial things in connection with the whole business, because I believe the longer we permit the private manufacture of armaments, the longer we shall be in getting a solution of our difficulties. I believe that no country should permit private enterprise in the manufacture of armaments. My opinion is that the manufacture of armaments ought to be controlled by the Government of the country in which they are manufactured and that the private trade in armaments should be rigidly controlled by the respective Governments, that the exports and imports of armaments should cease and that, a full account of the manufacture of all armaments in every country which is a member of the League of Nations ought at least to be registered by the League. To contend that disarmament is not practicable is equal to stating that the Covenant of the League is merely an ideal and that the close of the Peace Treaty meant nothing. Do we agree that the Peace Treaty means nothing? I know it is said that every country is working hard in order to comply with the terms of the Peace Treaty. At the moment there is a great Disarmament Conference sitting, and everyone in this House and outside is looking forward to beneficial results from that conference. I am sure that every one of us desires that some agreement of limitation should be reached. We all agree that Britain has made certain sacrifices. We have shown an example to the world in some respects, but I believe that we can honestly make greater efforts in the direction in which we have started, and that the efforts which we make would at
least bring along other countries who are of the same way of thinking. We may agree that to some extent Great Britain has shown an example to many other members of the League, and though they have not fallen in with the steps taken by us, we should continue our work until our disarmament has reached such an extent that the limits of safety really have been reached.
A great deal is made of the fact that we are disarmed, as one newspaper stated this morning, "to the bone." I do not believe that for a moment. I believe that further efforts can yet be made, and that we shall strengthen our position with other nations rather than lay ourselves open to other countries. As a nation we cannot do other than honour our word. When we lay down the conditions in a Treaty we undertake as a nation that as far as is humanly possible we shall carry out those conditions. Armaments do not give security, because chemical warfare is rapidly developing and taking the place of armaments. As an hon. Member has already said, it is suspicion that stands in the way of a settlement. The hon. Member said that if this suspicion was removed it would give a lead and opportunity that others could take. My right hon. Friend the late Secretary for War has been quoted to-night. I will give a further quotation from a speech by him:
Science has proceeded at such a rate that it has quite surpassed the capacity of the politicians and the diplomat to deal with the new world that has arisen. There is a set of politicians which thinks that one cannot live as a country without either detesting or mistrusting other countries. Until that mistrust is turned into friendship and unless nations will cease to treat other nations as potential enemies, whether in a military or an economic sense, there can be no hope of a world revival. Armaments are one mark of the politician's failure to recognise that the world has become a whole.
10.0 p.m.
Why is there this great mistrust? I am a peace-loving man, and I do not understand why nations cannot be quite open in their conversations with one another, as individuals are. It may be said that diplomacy stands in the way, and that great care has to be exercised. It appears that suspicion and distrust are the two elements which are preventing the materialisation of what we set about to get in 1919. Fear seems to have taken
the place of courage; we seem so afraid of one another that we are unable to trust one another at all. On the other hand we have not the courage to do that which we ought to do, by making ourselves plainly understood by all the people with whom we are in conversation on these matters. By co-operation and friendship between the peoples of the world, and frankness between statesmen and Governments, I believe that the peace of the world could be secured.
To say that Britain is disarmed to the limit of safety is not the end of disarmament. We have some way further to go yet, and I sincerely hope that as a result of this Debate to-night we shall make it quite clear that we believe that disarmament has not been carried to the limit to which it can be carried, and that it has not fulfilled its mission or purpose yet. As one of the greatest Powers we can still afford to make further sacrifices in this direction—sacrifices in order to remove from the minds of other nations that mistrust and fear which are the obstacles to true friendship—and so make a gesture and give a lead towards securing the peace of the world. If we could do that we could very easily clear away a tremendous amount of distrust. Then the huge cost of disarmament could be reduced by a very large amount in accordance with the economic necessity of every country. We cannot get away from the fact that the economic necessity is such as to demand the cutting down of the cost of armaments in every country in the world.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): We have had a very interesting Debate on a most important subject, and I have no serious complaint to make against any of the speeches that have been made by hon. Members on the other side. The Government has no objection to, indeed sympathises entirely with, the terms of the Amendment, and I hope, therefore, that the Opposition will not think it necessary to divide on it, because obviously, from the point of view of business on an Estimates night; it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment without serious consequences to the work of the House. The main thing is that this House as a whole is in hearty sympathy with the principles which are set forth in
the Amendment. The Amendment sets out very plainly what we are all agreed upon. We may not all agree that it is such an easy matter for this country to go on disarming still further, as some speakers have suggested. We may not think that this is quite the moment for this House to record its opinion upon matters which are under discussion at the Disarmament Conference, where our representatives are already putting forward our point of view and are doing all that they can to bring about that reduction in the world's armaments which we believe to be necessary for the peace, and the welfare of mankind. The hon. Member who opened the Debate dilated upon the horrors of war and I think spoke somewhat extravagantly upon matters arising out of the late War. One thing is perfectly certain, however, and that is that no one who took part in the late War has any wish or intention, if he can help it, to take part in another war. I sympathise very heartily with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) who made such a fervent request that the House should do everything in its power to prevent a recurrence of another war which might send him into a position of danger which he had no wish to occupy.

Mr. V. ADAMS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to me, may I remind him that I come from West Leeds.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I apologise to my hon. Friend. The real thing for us to remember and which it would be well for us not to lose sight of is that war is merely a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself. The causes which lead to war are the disease, the envy, suspicion and hatred which exist among nations. Therefore, the real work before us all is not to worry so much about disarmament and matters of detail but to do all that in us lies to remove the causes of war and to do our best to eradicate the spirit of evil which exists in the world by showing our disinterestedness and our faith and confidence in the future of humanity. That is why I am glad of the opportunity of to-night's Debate to refer very shortly to the great statesman of France whose death has just taken place. I was very glad that one of the
speakers on the Opposition Bench referred to M. Briand, because it is only fitting I think that we in the British House of Commons should make it clear to the French people that we sympathise with them in the tremendous loss which they have sustained by the death of M. Briand. We in this country were associated closely with M. Briand in the Great War and we all know that after the Great War the whole policy of M. Briand was directed to bring about a better relationship among the peoples of the world and was concentrated upon the preservation of peace.
It seems to me that in a discussion of this kind, when it is clear that the whole House in united, there really is no cause or reason why we should take up any further time in debating the Amendment. We, the representatives of the British people in the House of Commons, are absolutely determined to do our utmost to bring about a reduction in armament, because we believe that by so doing we shall be reducing the chances of another war. I am one of those who has perfect faith, if we are so united, that we shall carry through our ideal. I believe that the practical example in disarmament that we have already given, has proved our good faith to the world at large, and I hope that we shall succeed in making other nations follow suit. But do not let us imagine that we can secure anything like permanent peace in this world unless we can do more than has been done up to the present time in doing away with the real causes of war. Our task is, as I have already said, not so much a matter of reducing armaments, as one of a steady and persevering policy to bring about a better relationship and a better understanding between the nations of the world.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will not detain the House more than a few minutes, as I wish only to say that the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken certainly satisfies us, and the only difficulty is in regard to the previous speeches which have been made. But we are going to take his speech and the speech of the Foreign Secretary which was quoted here to-night as the mind of the Government on the subject, and we are going to accept the statement that to the fullest extent the Government intend to pursue the policy of Disarmament
with the rest of the nations of the world. In those circumstances, I ask my hon. Friend if he will kindly withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. D. ADAMS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Whatever may be the views of the House upon the Amendment which has just been discussed, I think that it is generally agreed that while we continue to have an Army it is essential that we should have an efficient one. I think it is also agreed that at the present time of financial stringency the maximum amount of economy should prevail in that as in every other Service. I congratulate the Financial Secretary upon the way in which he introduced the Estimates, while offering him my compassion upon the necessity for squeezing them down into such narrow 'limits. I feel that there are many of us in the House who would wish that those who are responsible for economies in the Army should go round to some of the other more prolific spending Departments and give them a few lessons as to how the thing has to be done. I sincerely believe that in the matter of achieving economy with the smallest loss of efficiency, the Estimates presented to-day form a model.
Having said that, I desire to call attention to a matter in which I feel that efficiency has been sacrificed not necessarily to economy, but to a false impression of economy. I refer to the continuation of the policy of the complete mechanisation of artillery in the Territorial Army. As a Territorial officer I feel, as we must all feel, very proud of the tribute paid to the Territorials by the Financial Secretary, and with regard to certain economies in that force I do not think that we wish unduly to cavil. We were very grateful for the statement that he realised that though we might have to -forego our training this year, we could not be expected to forego it next year. I know that he realises with what sacrifices on the part of all ranks, and particularly on the part of the private soldier, the training is being carried on this year. Long week-end camps without pay, and forms of training of that sort are being carried on under very great difficulties and at the expense of terrific sacrifices.
That is being done very largely in the belief and knowledge that next year we shall be allowed to have our annual training on which so much of our efficiency depends.
With regard to the mechanisation to which I have referred, I suggest that a mistake is being made, and that even at the eleventh hour or it may be, at five minutes to 12, the War Office may see fit to make a change of policy in this matter. The fear has gone forth that all Territorial Field Brigades are to be completely mechanised by, I think, the end of this year. It is a matter not so much of efficiency as of economy. I make no plea to keep the horse as a method of traction in pulling a gun. I aim making no plea to keep the horse from the point of view of sentiment, and there are many people who say that the idea of keeping horses is merely a survival of an ancient sentiment. I would not make a claim on these grounds for a, moment. I suggest that it is impossible to train military staffs in reconnaissance and in giving orders with the vehicles that are supplied to them. In the Regular Army the vehicles supplied are cross-country vehicles for the most up-to-date form of transport.
It is obvious that the Territorial Army cannot expect to have that form of vehicle supplied to them. It would be too expensive and would be a waste of money, but I do submit that the impossibility of training across country, especially English country, is almost insuperable. I would say nothing derogatory of the admirable vehicles which Sir William Morris provides so cheaply, but they are not good vehicles for cross-country transport. It is almost impossible to get a proper impression of the ground, a, proper aspect of the country and proper mobility when the battery staffs, the battery commanders and signallers have to go across ploughed country, with heavy clay soils, often soaked with rain, in a number of "Morris Cowleys." I know that this is being done because the old horse conveyances were so expensive, but I suggest that a, reduction of the horse grants rather than the abolition of them would not decrease efficiency but would materially decrease the expense.
I have particulars of the profit made by one county territorial association out
of its horse grants. It was allowed a certain amount in order to provide horses, and in 1928–29 out of the money, after having supplied its horses most adequately and efficiently, it made £881 clear profit, in 1929–30, £793 profit, and in 1930–31, £612 profit. All sheer profit out of the allowances made by the Government. I would ask the Financial Secretary to note these figures and see whether he cannot on the basis of those figures agree simply to a reduction of the horse grants instead of abolishing them. If he wants any more money in order to avoid what I believe would be a serious falling off in efficiency, I think I can suggest a method of finding it by touching upon another subject, namely, the question of grants for light horses. Here I speak of something of which I have personal experience, because I have been the recipient of premiums for some years under the light horse breeding scheme. I am told that some of the stallion owners were able to make a good thing out of it. It is no pleasure for me to see these grants cut down and still less to see them abolished.
I suggest that with the increasing mechanisation and other modernising factors this is no longer a matter that should be dealt with by the War Office, and that it should be handed over to the Ministry of Agriculture, to whom it rightly belongs. If there is any misgiving in the Treasury in regard to the matter, I may say that I have already put forward to the Ministry of Agriculture, and am prepared to put it forward to the Financial Secretary, the view, which is supported by many of the leading people in that industry, that all the money that is required for this purpose could be produced by the industry itself, with a little legislative help from the Government, not Treasury help. Therefore, the work done by the industry under the light horse breeding scheme could be carried on without any cost to the State. I submit that point to the Financial Secretary for consideration, with the plea that if it finds favour in the sight of the Government he might consider using the money which is saved for the purpose that I have indicated, in order to preserve the efficiency of the Field Artillery units of the Territorial Army, which will be seriously hampered if the horses
with which we now train for reoognisance purposes are finally removed.

Mr. LEWIS: I desire to ask the House to consider the case of the Army Educational Corps, with special reference to the conditions of employment of those responsible for its efficiency. The Army Educational Corps is a comparatively new unit. It is also a very small unit. It has only been in existence for about 10 years, and as far as the numbers are concerned the strength on 1st October of last year was 86 officers and 362 other ranks. But though the Army Educational Corps is a new unit and small in numbers it has work of very great importance to perform. It is responsible for providing the opportunities for enabling the Army to go on with its education and also for providing vocational training for those who will shortly leave the Service for civilian life. In all quarters of the House that work is recognised as very responsible and very desirable. As to how the corps is carrying out its work some light is shed in the Memorandum circulated in the Army Estimates, in which it is said that in regard to the opportunities for continuing their education afforded to men in the Army:
It is interesting to note that whereas the number of candidates presenting themselves for the first class and special certificates in 1921 was 121, the corresponding figure in October, 1931, was 5,462; these certificates are comparable with the school certificate and with the matriculation for a university respectively.
The number has gone up from 121 to 5,462 during the period the corps has been in existence. In regard to vocational training, the figures given in the Memorandum show that the provision is increasing, and not only so, but that the percentage of those who have enjoyed a course of vocational training who afterwards have got employment is increasing. For example, last year 2,429 went through a course of training as compared with 1,991 the year before, but although the number had increased over 75 per cent. of those who had undergone a course of training last year got employment, whereas in the previous year under 70 per cent. got employment. I claim, therefore, that I have shown that this corps not only has work of great importance to perform but that it is, in fact, performing that work satisfactorily. I wish to raise
to-night the conditions of service under which the men responsible for the efficiency of the corps are invited to serve. I say deliberately that nothing could be more disheartening than the conditions under which the commissioned officers of the Army Educational Training Corps are asked to work to-day. Unlike any other branch of the service, they have praotically no hope of promotion.
If any hon. Member after this Debate has the curiosity to look at the Army List he will see that an extraordinary state of affairs exists with regard to the length of time which each officer in this corps has held his rank. Let me give some examples. We find that there are four lieutenant-colonels who have held that rank in the corps during the 10 years of its existence as a separate unit. That circumstance, of course, has completely blocked any chance of a major being made lieutenant-colonel. If we look at the majors we find in the Army List of last month that the senior major is Major It. Jones, O.B.E, M.A. If we look at the Army List of 10 years ago we shall see that the senior major in the corps then was the same gentleman. There are 12 other majors who have held the same rank in the corps during the whole time. There are 22 captains who have held that rank throughout the separate existence of the corps. There are many who have held the rank of captain in the Army for 18 years and who are still captains in the Army Educational Corps. What prospect is there of anyone joining the corps as a lieutenant being promoted to a captaincy I It is sufficient I think to draw attention to the fact that the junior captain in the list to-day had to wait eight years as a lieutenant before he was promoted. How can we expect men who have joined this corps, desiring to give of their best in its service, to continue to work keenly, if they see the prospect of any improvement indefinitely blocked?
As regards the lieutenant-colonels at present in the corps, I understand that not long ago the conditions of retirement were altered so that the prospect of any major becoming a lieutenant-colonel is worse now than it was a year or two ago. Consider the case of a man who, as a captain joined the corps when it was formed,
who possibly got married, and who hoped that if be did his job well, his rank would be improved, and he would gain the advantages which go with higher rank. The years pass by and he sees no hope whatever of promotion, One of two things aught to be done. In the ordinary regiment, if a man attains a command, the normal thing is that he holds it for four years and then moves on to make room for another. If that were done in the Army Educational Corps as regards the lieutenant-colonels in charge of establishments, it would immediately cause a flow of promotion through the corps. If it be argued that it is undesirable to do so in this case and that, on account of the nature of the work, it is desirable to keep these officers longer at their particular jobs than is done in other branches of the service, then a different set of rules ought to be drawn up governing pay and promotion in this corps.
10.30 p.m.
If the time that senior officers are to hold these positions is not to be limited as it is, in practice, limited in other branches of the service, if they are to hold these appointments for as long as 10 years, then some special arrangement ought to be made for those whose promotion is thereby blocked. If it is desired that the rank should follow the ordinary Army rank, then a distinction should be made between the rank and the rate of pay. There is no reason why, if the Corps is to be treated as a separate entity, the rates of pay should follow the rank as in other arms of the Service. It might be arranged on the basis of years' service, subject to the necessary qualifications of examination and so on, but in any case I maintain that very great hardship is being suffered by the officers of this corps. They are utterly hopeless, there is nothing that they can do, and there is no prospect of their position being in any way improved.
We have not the advantage of the Secretary of State for War in this House, and I realise that the Financial Secretary to the War Office will have to he more guarded perhaps in what he says than his chief might be if he were here, but I ask him not to content himself with promising that he will look into this
question, but to go so far as to say that he will himself make a serious effort to get something done, so that when these Estimates come before this House next year, we may find that this absolute stagnation in promotion in the Army Educational Corps has in some way been broken up.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: I wish to address myself to the Financial Secretary to the War Office on one point of great interest, and that is the employment of ex-soldiers. The hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Captain A. Hope) and the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive) both mentioned that they thought it would be of great advantage if there could be a certain continuity of service for men in the defence forces of the Crown and in the Civil Service afterwards. I should like thoroughly to endorse that view. At the same time, the employment of ex-soldiers is a very important thing to consider. There are no fewer than 30,000 to 40,000 men annually leaving the service who are thrown on the labour market, or there is that number annually due for discharge or transfer to the Reserve. Their ages vary between 23 and 40, and the average age is probably somewhere in the region of 27 years. The State can only absorb about 5,000 of these men, and not always immediately on leaving the Colours, and they have to wait a considerable time.
There is a well-known association, called the National Association for the Employment of Regular Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen. It is the principal agency for this purpose, and is used and officially recognised by the War Office. It is supported almost entirely by voluntary contributions, but the Government contribute a sum of £1,950 per annum, of which £1,250 is given by the War Office, £500 by the Navy, and £200 by the Air Force. This is a very meagre amount, and it is a very struggling concern, especially in these days, when there is such a, great deal of unemployment. There have been various schemes, spreading over a number of years, for the improvement and the strengthening of the financial position of this great association. So long ago as 1906 there was a Departmental Committee presided over by Sir Edward Ward as Chairman, and they recommended that
a sum of no less than £16,000 should be given from public funds for the assistance of this agency. Recently there has been another scheme, under which, with the increased rebate from the Navy, Army, and Air Force Canteen Fund, they should give £8,000 towards the association, but that unfortunately fell through.
We cannot do it this year, but I would recommend to the Financial Secretary that the time will come next year when something should be done in order to strengthen the financial position of this great association. It is lagging behind. There are several other small associations of different regiments and corps that should come in and join up and make one strong, central association. The stronger the central association is, the more readily they will all come together and do their best for the ex-service man. It would increase the popularity of the Army and enlistment in the Army if the men realised that the Government were prepared to do anything they could to settle them in civil life when they left the Colours. I strongly recommend to the Financial Secretary that something should be done next year in the way of a larger grant to this association for the employment of ex-service men.
I must say a word as an old cavalry soldier because we have heard one or two very uninformed speeches, one from the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), saying that the cavalry was an obsolete arm. I do not think that the hon. Member can know very much about it. He certainly has not studied the manoeuvres of two years ago when the cavalry absolutely walked round all the mechanical contrivances of modern times. Practically all these mechanical vehicles broke down and the cavalry walked round the lot. The hon. Member quoted only one authority in support of his argument—the late Minister of War, Mr. Tom Shaw. I can only think that the late Minister of War missed his vocation when he did not enlist as a heavy dragoon.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I want to draw attention to a question connected with our armament manufacture. We have at Enfield in the Small Arms Factory an excellent institution for the production of small arms for our troops. Economy has necessarily caused the factory to fall under the eye of the Secretary of State. This factory is one of the
most efficient in the country. It is equipped with the very latest and best machinery, which is equal to any engineering machinery in the country. It is a large factory and capable of very big production. It used to employ no less than 1,800 men in the production not only of rifles, which are well known throughout the world as the Enfield rifle, but of machine guns, of pistols, and of small arms generally. Unfortunately, we have suffered a very heavy reduction in numbers of men employed in the factory from time to time. If that were due to sheer economy and to the fact that we could obtain these arms cheaper or better outside, I would have nothing to say, but the fact of the matter is that the overhead charges of the factory are so high that it cannot possibly compete with outside firms. The reason for that is that a large amount of the machinery is not being used. Nearly one-half the machinery is not in use at the present moment; the result is that the overhead charges are so great that it brings up the cost of arms made in the factory considerably above the present market price.
Should a nation that possesses a factory equipped with modern machinery on such a scale, however, go outside for its work, and then bring back that very work, which is made by a private firm, to that factory in order to he inspected and passed by the inspectors there, while at the same moment it is actually discharging no less than 256 men who have had years of experience I The oldest men, who are the most experienced and the best workmen are being discharged in order to effect economy. Thereby they throw more machinery out of work. That machinery belongs to us, it is public property, and is idle when it ought to be working, simply because we are employing outside firms to produce things which could be perfectly well made in that factory. I do not want to appeal to my hon. Friend from a sentimental point of view, but I would point out to him that what we are doing is not an economy at all. If we turn 256 men out of employment in the Enfield factory and they are obliged to go on the Poor Law, as they must, because there are no less than 3,000 unemployed in Enfield at the present. moment, it is no economy at all, except to the hon. Member himself, in his official' capacity. The War Office, I admit, will
be better off by, what?—£5,000 or £6,000 a year; but those men will still have to be kept by this nation, and they will be kept in idleness instead of in productive work.
I make a last appeal to my hon. Friend to consider this subject from a national point of view and not from the point of view of the War Office alone. Surely it would be better to use the factory for the production of the hundred and one things we require in the Army than to turn those men out on to the Poor Law, to be kept by the public, and in that way reduce still further the efficiency of the factory, because the overhead charges will be still greater if instead of having about 1,000 men we have only 750. On the ground of economy, on the ground of efficiency, and for the sake of the Army as well as of the men, I make a final appeal to the hon. Gentleman to retain those men in the factory and give them the work which is now being done by private firms. Let him bring the machinery which is there, which has been paid for, and which is now rusting—if I may use the word—into work again, and keep those highly trained and highly skilled men in employment instead of turning them leg, after 30 or 40 years' faithful service, to what really becomes pauperism—living on the dole which they will get from the public.

Mr. COOPER: I think it will be as well if I reply now to the long Debate we have had and the many interesting points which have been raised. I think all who have taken part in the Debate have contributed something towards it, and they have certainly contributed towards my task in replying. In fact, if I replied to all the points brought forward and all the questions put I am afraid I should keep the House longer than hon. Members are probably willing to stay. Therefore, I shall have to select some of what I think are the more important points, and I hope hon. Members will not think it too strange if I prefer to reply to those hon. Members who, unlike jesting Pilate, have waited for an answer rather than those who have gone away. The Debate has been enlightened and improved by one or two interesting maiden speeches from Members whom we shall all hope to hear again, and I would particularly mention the speeches of the
hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) and the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Gluck-stein).
The main general criticism of my opening remarks was that I provided no opportunity for a discussion of the great question of a Defence Ministry. It was not open to me to discuss that question to-night, and any criticism on that ground comes ill from the Opposition, who can always put down the Committee of Imperial Defence Vote in order to discuss it. During the short period I have been in the House we have had, I think, one Debate upon that very subject. Whenever it has been referred to to-day, the May Committee has always been spoken of as though their judgments and their views were the last word in wisdom, and may I point out that the May Committee did inquire very closely into this question of a Ministry of Defence and the coordination of the three defence Departments, and definitely turned the proposal down. I do not say that that judgment will always remain the final one, but at any rate it is in this year 1932 the judgment of that committee, and we must bear it in mind.
The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who opened the Debate, complained that in my speech I had not given any justification for maintaining an Army of this size, and had not explained what the policy was which made the retention of such an Army necessary or defensible. I really thought that if any Member of this House knew the reply to that question it was the hon. Member himself, who himself has served at the War Office, who has sat on this bench, and supported by his vote and speech the retention of a larger Army, and who has voted for bigger Estimates. I did not think that it would have been necessary for me to explain to him why we required to have an Estimate for 140,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) raised a more far-reaching question of policy. His questions were very much from the opposite point of view from those put by the hon. Member for Limehouse. The point of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook was that it, was impossible to justify the existence of so small an Army to carry on such great responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman's
criticism can be replied to in almost the same words as my reply to the hon. Member for Limehouse. The right hon. Gentleman has been a member—not a junior member, but a Cabinet Minister —of more than one administration, and he has always supported an Army of this size. During the years the right hon. Gentleman has been in office he has seen the Army dwindling and diminishing, and I am not sure that he has ever protested against the present numbers of the Army being insufficient to fulfil their responsibilities.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) criticised on general grounds the present position from the point of view that we were bothering more in the Army about mechanisation than about keeping it up to date, and about preserving it as a force for killing men and worrying less about housing the troops. That is perfectly true, but that is one of the unpleasant facts of the situation. We have to realise that if we have an Army at all, we must keep it efficient That must be our first consideration. To let that Army get inefficient is, obviously, a worse policy than to disband it. Therefore, we must keep the question of efficiency in the forefront, and allow housing questions and general amenities to take a secondary place when it comes to comparing them with the question of the efficiency of the Army.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) asked why I said the present Estimates could not be taken as a standard for future Estimates, and why it should be necessary to ask the House to vote larger sums for future Estimates. I endeavoured to explain that in my opening remarks. Surely the hon. Member will agree with the views of his late colleague Mr. Shaw, who was Minister of War a year ago, when he said that the Army had been reduced to the lowest limits and that no further economy could be effected. I agree with that, and I am sure the hon. Member will agree with it, and when I tell him that we have cut down expenditure this year by abolishing the Territorial camps, thereby saving £1,000,000, that we cannot do it next year, and that therefore that £1,000,000 will have to be spent next year, and I do not see where it is coming from, surely
he can see why I argue that these Estimates could not be taken as the standard for another year.
A great many questions have been put to me, a number of which I will try to answer. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) paid a tribute to the staff of the War Office. I do not think sufficient tribute has been paid to that staff this evening. I am glad the hon. Member said that while he was there they deserved his respect. I should like to assure him that that respect was mutual, and that he entirely earned their respect. Then he asked about the stores and as to inspection. He has been Financial Secretary to the War Office, and did he accept the word of his advisers as to the stores being there, or did he take a train down and insist on seeing them for himself? He knows that the inspectors are people who are highly qualified for the task of inspection, and it is impossible either for him or for me to suggest anybody better to fulfil that task. Then he asked whether we are going on with Catterick. The work is proceeding, and we are going on there. We have done nearly everything in making the conditions of the troops at Catterick as suitable and as agreeable as possible.
The hon. Member for Gorbals asked whether I could give any assurance as to the restoration of the reduction made in Army pay. I am not sure whether he was here when I spoke, but if he had been he should have realised that I tried to explain that we did not admit that the present pay of the Army was too low. We merely applied to the whole Army the new system of pay introduced in 1925. It may have inflicted many hardships, and men who are now serving abroad may now be sending home to their relatives less than they did. That is all very regrettable and sad, but we do not admit that they are being paid at too low a rate. Therefore, we cannot undertake to restore what was admittedly too high a rate of pay which those who joined the Army prior to 1925 were then receiving. The truth of that is shown by the fact that since these new rates of pay have been in operation, they have not adversely affected recruiting at all. The hon. Member for Gorbals suggested that the better recruiting now was due to the fact that hunger was the recruiting sergeant, but I would point out that the
improvement in recruiting began in the spring of 1931 when the Socialist Government were in office. It is estimated by those who watch these affairs closely and are best qualified to judge, that events at Shanghai, so far from discouraging recruiting, have encouraged it to a considerable extent.
The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) asked a good many questions and made many criticisms in the course of his useful and helpful speech. He asked whether we had put into force the May recommendations with regard to Woolwich. That we have done, and £40,000 has been saved as a result. He asked also a question with regard to mechanical transport, as to whether we had accepted the May recommendations with regard to withdrawing the subsidy for mechanical transport. We have done so to a large extent, but not altogether. There are still certain vehicles which are of inestimable use to the Army, and without which it cannot get on, but for which at present there is no commercial future, and we believe that it is necessary to subsidise the manufacture of these vehicles, I cannot say for how long, but until either their utility has been proved to the commercial community and they are prepared to buy them, or until we are able to find something more satisfactory from the Army point of view. The £8,000 this year is not a terminal charge, but is contingent as regards the years to come.
The hon. and gallant Member also asked whether the Whitley Council for the War Office were allowed to recommend people for promotion. I am glad to say that that is not the case. They are allowed to put forward recommendations, but not to mention any names. They might recommend that the rule of seniority should be observed in making any promotions in the future, or they might recommend that the rule of seniority should not apply, and that greater attention should be paid to merit. Their recommendations are treated with great consideration, but they are never permitted to suggest names. The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive) raised many points, among others, the question of coast defence, on which he is not quite satisfied, because he feels, very naturally, that the handing over of this heavy re-
sponsibility to the Territorials involves a risk, owing to the fact that the Territorials would not always be prepared to mobilise in time. As a matter of fact, the Territorials in question will be maintained on a war basis. They will be allowed to be called up during the period before mobilisation, and will be in exactly the same position as the artillery who have hitherto had this responsibility.
The hon. Member for East Nottingham put forward one or two suggestions. He suggested a wandering commission, if I may so describe it, of ex-business men, travelling about and appearing suddenly and asking people what they were doing. They would be accompanied by some staff officer of almost universal attainments, acquainted with every branch of the Service, who would be able to put them right if ever any danger should occur of their going wrong. It is an interesting suggestion, but I am not sure that in practice it would work out so well as the hon. Member expects.
11.0 p.m.
I ought to remind the House, and those who have criticised the staff at the War Office and the numbers of those employed on the staffs at various places, that since the War no less than seven separate committees have inquired into the War Office and the staff of the War Office Some have been mentioned in this Debate, but not all. In addition to these seven special committees of highly qualified business men, the Estimates Committee of the House of Commons have three times made special inquiries into the War Office and the staff of the War Office, while every year the whole of our Estimates come before the Public Accounts Committee, and have to face the severest criticism of the members of that Committee by question and answer, which the hon. Member for Limehouse suggested was the way in which you should proceed to inquire into these items—by having the people up and asking them. It happens every year. Representatives of the Department are brought up before the Committee, on which all parties are represented, and they can be asked any question and they have to answer. So many people are apt to think that everything can be set right by setting up a committee of clever men, especially business men. We have had in the last 10 years almost
too many of these committees. I think as far as the War Office is concerned, they have done their worst, or their best. An interesting suggestion with regard to reducing the movements of troops was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aston, but it was gone into very carefully at the time when economies were forced on the War Office. I read all the minutes and saw that a discussion had taken place between those best qualified to judge and the conclusion was come to—not a final conclusion: it would be possible to inquire further into it—that the economy would be slight and the loss in training would be considerable. You have stations such as Gravesend and Pembroke Docks where there are no opportunities of training at all. You do not want to leave any unit there longer than you can possibly help. The same applies to the Brigade of Guards. In London there are no opportunities of training, and that is why they are moved more often than others. However, I am prepared to consider my hon. Friend's views. There is a, good deal to be said for them.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ludlow raised once again the question of buying British meat for the Army. It would add £200,000 or £300,000 a year to our Estimates and it would not help the efficiency of the troops at all. Speaking simply as the mouthpiece of the War Office, I cannot give any sympathy whatever to the suggestion. No doubt it is a meritorious suggestion on other grounds, but it is the Ministry of Agriculture that should bear the weight and pay the piper.
Another suggestion by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aston (Captain Hope) was that men should enter the Government service and remain in it, that they should, on leaving the Army, join some other Department of the State and their seven years should be allowed to count for pension. That, also, has been gone into time and again by highly efficient committees of business men. The trouble is that someone has to pay. It will cost the country more. Someone has to pay for the seven years in the Army and counting the service for pension. We do not want to pay and no one wants to pay. The suggestion
itself is very attractive but the general view of those who have inquired into the question is that it would cost more money in the long run than it would be worth. The criticism by the hon. Member for Leigh of the cavalry has been answered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Brigadier-General. Makins), who is qualified to speak on it. I do not think the hon. Gentleman allows an occasion to go by without expressing the views that he holds concerning the cavalry. I almost think he must have served in the infantry in the last War.
An hon. Member referred to the mechanisation of the Territorial Army and criticised it. We wish to make the Territorial Army as efficient as the Regular Army. There is no doubt nowadays that we are obliged to introduce mechanisation in the transport of the Regular Army, and it is necessary that the Territorials should be kept abreast of the Regular Army, and that we should keep them as similar as possible. With regard to the light horse breeding scheme, it was one of the recommendations of the May Committee that we should withdraw the subsidy. It was withdrawn, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State subsequently made a very generous concession of £8,000 towards those engaged in the light horse breeding scheme. The situation is that, while we do not for one moment take the view that the work of the cavalry is done and that there is no future for cavalry in war—on the contrary, we hold that it still has a great part to perform—we believe that we can obtain the horses that we need without supporting the light horse breeding scheme, and that therefore we are not justified any longer in spending public money in this way.
The question was also raised of the employment of ex-service men, and I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend supports the scheme at which we are working for co-ordinating all the various bodies which are now engaged in trying to find employment for these men. I need hardly deal with the questions regarding the abolition of the Clothing Factory at Pimlico, because I think they have not really interfered with my original statement on the subject. So far as these particular people are concerned the fact that the lease is
coming to an end in 1937 is final and is of first-rate importance. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said that it was of no importance whatever. So far as these people are concerned it is the thing that matters above all, for it means that they will lose their employment sooner or later. Then there is the fact that we are going to save money.

Mr. LAWSON: Why not start another factory?

Mr. COOPER: Because there is nowhere else where we can get a factory site in that part of London. We have had a very careful search made all over the Pimlico district, and that is the case. In any event it would not be the best part of England in which to have a factory. If we did have another factory we should probably have it in the north of England. The case has been made out that the factory was formed in 1855 in order to defeat the rascally contractors, but we have devised other means since then of defeating rascally contractors. There is no suggestion that in the late War the contractors supplied boots made out of paper, or supplied rotten meat or any of these horrors, and that these things will continue if we destroy that poor little factory. Why is it, if we can succeed in getting good meat, good boots and everything else, without having a special Government factory, that we should still continue a factory at Pimlico for the manufacture of Army clothing? There is no case for it at all, as the experience of other Government Departments shows.
With regard to the War Office staff, which many hon. Members raised, I feel that the case has not been sufficiently strongly stated on behalf of the Civil Service. The change that has come over the Civil Service during the last few years can be appreciated only by those who have seen it. I joined the Foreign Office in the year 1913, and in that year the whole duty of dealing with telegrams, receiving, ciphering, deciphering, and distributing, was performed by three junior members of the office staff. The one thing that we had not been examined in was typewriting, and we had to learn it during the first morning we were in the
office. The whole of that work was carried out by three members of the office. To-day there is a specially trained staff of 25 people engaged upon that work. They work in two shifts, from eight o'clock in the morning until 12 at night. In another room there are professional typists and stenographers who take down, copy out, and distribute the documents. That is my experience of one corner in one Department of State. The same thing has been happening all over the Civil Service all over England and in not one case has so much been done as in the War Office. There are 92 different kinds of vehicles used in the Army, there are actually four times as many kinds of guns used in the Army as before the War. Before the War there were two machine guns for each battalion, and to-day there are 42 for each battalion. There used to be 39,000 tenders, this year 56,000 were sent out. That gives hon. Members some idea of the increase of the business. There is a complication of affairs—mechanisation, wireless, tanks, anti-aircraft, all that sort of thing. It has far more than doubled the work which the Civil Service has to perform. In addition, we have in the Army the question of dealing with married officers and marriage allowances which did not exist before the War. Education and vocational training, which hardly existed before the War, are now some of the important things with which the War Office has to deal. We also have to pay greater attention to the social conditions of the troops. There are questions of housing and pensions legislation—all putting a tremendous, additional burden upon the Civil Service. There are pensions, widows' pensions, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, industrial courts, Whitley Councils, all increasing the work of the Civil Service. There is the application of Income Tax affecting as it does an enormous new circle of people. All that has increased the work of the War Office.
Even in regard to the political situation, there are I forget how many new countries which have been created since the War under the Versailles Treaty and as the outcome of the policy of self-determination. Each has its own Army to be watched in order that our War Office may be efficiently informed. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in correspondence. Apparently owing to
the growth of education people write more letters. Also people are more interested in War Office affairs, as we have seen by the length of this Debate. So many people were engaged, unfortunately, in the late War and so many of our contemporaries have been in the Army, that many of them have been anxious to take part in the Debate upon the Army. A great many more people are anxious to write letters on the subject of War Office affairs. All this has increased the work of the War Office by twice as much as the numbers of the staff have increased. When I reflect upon those facts I am astonished that the staff is not very much larger than it is.

Mr. LEWIS: Is there no word of hope to offer to the officers of the Army Education Corps?

Mr. COOPER: The Army Education Corps is one of those corps which was started and grew up so rapidly that it is now suffering from a certain congestion. I hope that it may be possible to find some way of dealing with the problem, though I cannot at the moment suggest any solution of it. I should be very glad to go into it with him, and I think that we might find some way by mutual understanding to achieve a solution of the problem which, in comparison with many other problems affecting the War Office and the many hardships inflicted upon men of all ranks, is not one, perhaps, of first-rate importance.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 148,700, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933.

Lord APSLEY: I have no wish unduly to increase the work of the War Office by lengthening the Debate, in spite of the fact that before the Great War and during the South African War, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Debates were prolonged to a very late hour. There is one matter to which I
should like to refer. Page 34, on Vote A, states that in 1928 two cavalry regiments, one at home and one in Egypt, were selected for conversion into cavalry armoured car regiments. I have looked up the establishment, and I find that they consist of 438 and 422 respectively. I understand that they are organised on an establishment of three squadrons, each squadron consisting of three troops, each with five cars, that is, four cars and one car for the troop commander. On page 40, Vote A, there is a reference to armoured cars in the Tank Corps. It says:
There is a depot at Woolwich, forming part of the Royal Tank Corps centre, where recruits are trained. The period of training is 35 weeks. Drafts for the armoured car companies abroad are found from Tank battalions, and are given special training in armoured car work before going oversea.
On looking at the establishment of those armoured car companies in the Royal Tank Corps, I find that they consist of 190 all ranks, and that there are two of them, both in Egypt, but one is only temporarily there. Their establishment is four sections of four cars each. It seems to me that there is a great deal of duplication in this organisation. On going further into it, one finds that it works out in a more complicated manner still, because the Royal Air Force have armoured cars in Iraq, and I understand that the Navy have them also. Yet no proper text-book of training for armoured cars is got out by the War Office from which one can get instructions. It brings still more complicated issues in regard to the Territorial units, because some of them get their cars from one branch of the Army and some get them from other branches.
With regard to the Royal Tank Corps and the armoured cars under their jurisdiction, I would, with all due respect, point out that it must be, and is, very difficult for the Royal Tank Corps to administer and train armoured car companies, 'because it is completely foreign to their work. The Tank Corps is a tactical unit pure and simple. They have one mission only and that is to gain a specific tactical advantage and position. They have their objective, they are given it, and they have to take it, and to do it they must have two things—careful ground of reconnaissance and the element of surprise. They are simply a modern
reproduction of an arm that has existed in all ages, from the time of Hannibal's elephants, the chariots of Alexander the Great, the medieval knights, and the contact squadrons of Napoleon.
It does not matter which you take, their mission is the same. If you put a tank corps on a special mission by themselves they will suffer the same fate as Goliath suffered at the hands of David. The Windmill Hill periodically sees Members of this House and Dominion Prime Ministers, sometimes the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and it may be King Amanullah, watching tanks perform marvellous evolutions in which they carry all before them; but any driver in the Tank Corps will tell you that they can only do that after very careful preparation of the ground and very careful rehearsing, and even after that some of them get into trouble. Once you get tanks away from a reconnoitred ground they get into trouble at once.
Reconnaissance and strategic work have nothing to do with the Tank Corps at all; there is nothing complementary in the work of a tank battalion and an armoured car company. I suggest that this matter might be straightened out. The establishment of a company with four sections of four cars is, as a matter of fact, quite hopeless for reconnaissance purposes. A car corps commander might have a car of his own, and a troop of five cars is the only possible unit for an officer to command in the field. Armoured cars are becoming more important, they are in1 fact performing the work which the contact squadrons used to perform in Napoleon's days, of keeping in touch with the enemy miles and miles away from communications. I believe that one newspaper discovered the fact that an armoured car actually won the War because it got behind the German lines quite by mistake and got a complete plan of the Hindenburg line. I hope the Financial Secretary will take this matter into consideration. There should be one organisation, one text book, That would, I am sure, redress the anomaly which exists and which is seriously hampering the training of this section of the Army at the moment.

PAY, &C., OF THE ARMY.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,039,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND LANDS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,421,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Lands, including military and civilian staff, and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933.

HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY, AND OTHER NONEFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,528,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933.

PENSIONS, &C., FOR WARRANT OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, MEN, AND OTHERS.

Resolved,
 That a sum, not exceeding £4,518,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and Kilmainham Hospital; of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933.

CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION, AND GRATUITIES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £260,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Additional Allowances Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1931.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted to His Majesty, to
defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The explanation of this small Supplementary Estimate can be briefly given. It is due in the main to the patriotism of the British public in refraining from travel abroad in a time of national need. The Estimate, in respect of passport fees which we had made was fulfilled up to August last, when owing to our departure from the Gold Standard and the imposition of additional taxation and most of all, the national appeal to people to spend money at home there was a sharp and immediate fall in the output of approximately 15 per cent. We were able to make up for that loss up to December by doubling the cost of the fees, which we did, with the consent of the Treasury.
Since the beginning of this year there has been a considerable further falling off, and as we anticipate that the Easter traffic this year will also be very much less, we are compelled to come for this £1,500 to make up for the Estimate which we presented to the House last year.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.